This blog is about spiritual awakening, maps and stages, the blinding effects of our strong momentum/conditioning (karmic propensities), view, realization, experience, etc. If you're new here, I recommend going through the 'Must Reads' articles (see sidebar). For discussions you are welcome to join the Awakening to Reality Facebook group

Translate

Ads 300 x 600

Recent Posts

Our
cognition is the foremost characteristic and defining attribute of what
we call our mind. It is our consciousness, awareness, knowing, noetic
capacity etc. whatever name you want to call it.

When that cognition is conditioned, it mistakes itself
to be a subjective reference point that is relating to conditioned
objective entities. Conditioned in this context means something that can
either (i) exist, or (ii) not-exist. And likewise we take our mind to
be something that we possess, something that originated at some point,
and likewise then something that is susceptible to cessation, death,
etc. All of this arises due to the fact that we are ignorant of the
actual nature of our mind.

When
we say that this allegedly conditioned mind/cognizance has an
unconditioned nature, it means that this noetic capacity is
fundamentally free from the myriad forms of extremes and dualities that
are mistakenly imposed upon it through our ignorance.

And
recognizing the nature of mind means we, for the first time, realize
directly and experientially that our mind is not located in a specific
place, or that it is not extended in time between a point of origin and a
point of cessation. That our mind is not a subject that is relating to
objects that reside at a distance. This goes back to what Soh
and others often speak of when they say they have realized anatman
(anatta), where it is realized that there was never a core identity or
reference point of our mind/cognition. That the expression of visual
appearances we refer to as "seeing" is simply occurring without a "seer"
and without a object that is seen. And the same applies to all sense
doors. That 'nature' of cognition has already always been the case, it
is just that we have failed to recognize it.

This
means it is recognized that the mind, as a subjective knower was an
artificial byproduct of a fundamental species of ignorance and the
habitual patterns of grasping (at appearances) that resulted from that
ignorance.

....The bright vivid presence is what is what is ultimately essenceless.

The "nature of mind" is defined as non-dual cognizance and emptiness.

The "bright vivid presence" is the cognizance, and the point is to recognize that presence is empty i.e., essenceless.

I think that there is no one who has not heard the name Descartes. Rene Descartes (1596-1650) was a great philosopher and mathematician born in France. He was a contemporary with the great physicist, Galileo Galilei (1564-1642), born in Italy Descartes, in Discourse on the Method, a work published in 1637, wrote, “I think, therefore I am.”1 These words, signifying the comprehension of the existence of the self as a reality beyond doubt, formed probably the most famous and most important proposition in the history of modern philosophy. For that reason Descartes is called the Father of Modern Philosophy.

The process of Descartes’ cognitive methodology in the Discourse on the Method is, to put it simply: “If something can be doubted even a little, it must be completely rejected.” Those things which we usually think of as correct must be completely rejected should there be even the faintest doubt about them. In such a process even the proposition that 1 + 1 = 2, which seems to be self-evident reasoning, is rejected. However, Descartes asserts that the one thing that cannot be excluded and remains last of all is the perception “I think, therefore I am.” Is this true? Should this be rejected? Certainly there is a self which thinks about the self thinking. This fact cannot be denied.

But was Descartes really right?

Descartes was mistaken. I cannot help but say so. Perhaps someone will say to me, “Do you really think that you have the knowledge and intelligence sufficient to refute the conclusion drawn by one of the greatest thinkers known to us, someone who thoroughly thought through the problem and reached a conclusion affirmed by everyone?” It goes without saying that I do not have the knowledge and intelligence of Descartes. However, this is not a question of knowledge and intelligence. It is rather a question of the real world discovered through experience.

Descartes is mistaken in a number of points.First of all, the proposition itself, “I think, therefore I am” is a tautological contradiction. The contradiction lies in the fact that while the proposition seeks to show the process whereby one can know the existence of “I,” already from the start it is presupposing that existence in the words, “I think.” This contradiction seems at first to be only a matter of word usage and not something essential to the argument. However, it is really closely tied up with the essence of the problem.

To think about “Is this correct? Is this mistaken?” is something that cannot be denied. “Thinking” is a reality that cannot be excluded. Up to this point it is true just as Descartes maintained. However, the next step in which Descartes knows the existence of “I” by “therefore I am” is where Descartes fell into error. Where in the world did Descartes bring in this “I”? Where in the world did Descartes find this “I”? I must say that as soon as Descartes started with “I think,” he already had fallen into this error.

“Thinking” is a reality that cannot be denied. But there is nothing beyond that reality of “thinking.” No matter where you look, something called “I” does not exist. No matter how much intellectual knowledge you may have, insofar as you do not have this experience, you cannot discover this world. “I think, therefore I am” must be re-phrased as “Thinking, but there is no I.”

When Master Joshu was asked what was the world discovered by Shakyamuni (What was the meaning of Bodhidharma’s coming from the West?) he answered, “The oak tree in the garden.” This is a famous koan in the Gateless Gate (Mumonkan).Jôshû is presenting the world of “Thinking, but there is no I.” The oak tree in the garden, besides that tree nothing else exists in heaven or earth--an even less so, a “Joshu” who is looking at it. This is the world that is manifested in this utterance.

“The oak tree in the garden, but there is no I.”

1The original French is: Je pense, donc je suis. This was rendered into Latin by a priest friend of Descartes as “Cogito ergo sum.”

Originally
posted by JonLS: Someone asked the question below and I've answered it the best way I can and
yet I haven't really answered the question at all because I simply don't know
the answer and strongly suspect the question is itself questionable.

In the world of presence, there is no such division; although there is no
division, apple is still not orange and “I am not You”. The conditions for
arising differ.

There is the temptation to express this way in conventional terms but really it
is the result of attempting to reconcile non-dual experience into a dualistic
framework and extrapolate a little due to momentum.

When we are engaged in the process of explaining “I am You”, confusion arises
not only because dualistic thinking is not an appropriate tool to express
non-dual experience, but we identify with the dualistic mechanism. The habitual
tendency of the mind to identify is so amazing and our entire experience is
shaped during the process even for a person that has experienced non-duality.

In Buddhism, there is no-self apart from phenomenon happening and there never
was a ‘you and me’ from start. Therefore non-dual experience is not being
extrapolated to “I am You”, instead, a skillful-mean to correctly explain
without being trapped in a dualistic framework was devised. This skillful mean
must eliminate ‘I’ from start and see what is from beginning. Emptiness and
Dependent Origination are devised for this purpose.

There is phenomenon happening, there is no self and to intuitively experience
the ceaseless arising and ceasing nature of awareness is more precious than
anything in Buddhism; this is the arising of prajna wisdom.

My 2 cents.

Thusness: 01 July 2007 · 10:32 AM

quote:

Originally posted by longchen: Just a sharing.. IMO..

The question is absolutely valid...

We can never change anybody. This is also part of the realisation of isness. We
can share our experiences... but any expectation is really the 'sense of self'
already.

But, we all like others to experience what we are expereincing. We are humans
and we like others to share our good discoveries.

For myself, I seldom talk about my 'discoveries' except on forums like this one
and when somebody express interest. I don't even talk about this much to my
wife. I tried but she does not understand. So I just let it be.

Also from the non-dual perspective, the distinction between self and others
really becomes blurred... due to the removal of subject-object split. We become
quite aware of when there is an outward externalisation to 'address' a
'somebody outside'. For me, this outward externalisation although is required
for interaction with others, nevertheless is also a cause of 'suffering' as we
constantly tries to modify the outcomes.

Just a sharing...

There is a part on 'perception and sensation' are the environment. Think you
edited it. Non-dual experiencer will like it even though it does not make much
meaningful sense.

Forum Topic:Enlightenment

Thusness: 08 July 2007 · 10:48 AM

quote:

Originally posted by JonLS: There is the interpretation by the mind, that I am posting on an internet
forum and this forum exists somewhere in cyberspace.

There is also the interpretation that I am posting to separate individuals
"out there" somewhere.

There is even the interpretation that these people need guidance with regard to
enlightenment.

Isn't that whole heap of interpretation???

The mind truly is amazing.

The cracking sound of the door, engine starting, the movement of the air when
it touches the skin…where is the spaciousness and what is ‘I’ before
interpretation.

‘Experience experience’

From subtle fear to interpretations due to prior intense confusion to joy in getting
grounded in Isness.

Isness spreads and is experienced as transients. One dirties his hand and dwell
back into the world of interpretations without identification.

...In Ch'an, the fifth of Kuo-an Shih-yuan's Ten Oxherding Pictures
describes a stage of enlightenment in which thoughts too are not to be
rejected: "Enlightenment brings the realization that thoughts are not
unreal since even they arise from our True-nature. It is only because delusion
still remains that they are imagined to be unreal". [2]

The problem is not thoughts per se but more specifically a certain type of
thinking, variously called "reasoning",
"conceptualizing&quot;, "dualistic thinking", etc....

...The etymologies of vijnana and prajna are revealing. Both have the same root
jna, "to know". The vi- prefix of vijnana (also in vi-kalpa and
vi-tarka) signifies "separation or differentiation&quot;; hence it
refers to that type of knowing which functions by discriminating one thing from
another--the most fundamental discrimination being that of the knower from the
known. In contrast, the pra-prefix of prajna means "being born or
springing up" [8] -- presumably by itself, evidently referring to a more
spontaneous type of knowing in which the thought no longer seems to be the
product of a subject, but is experienced as arising from a deeper nondual
source. In such knowing the thought and that which is conscious of the thought
are one. One important implication of this is that it is impossible to observe
one's thoughts objectively. The Siksasamuccaya of Santideva contains a
meditation on thought which dwells on this point:

...For thought, Kasyapa, cannot be apprehended, inside or outside, or in
between both. For thought is immaterial, invisible,, non-resisting,
inconceivable, unsupported and homeless. Thought has never been seen by any of the
Buddhas, nor do they see it, nor will they see it. . . . A thought is like the
stream of a river, without any staying power; as soon as it is produced it
breaks up and disappears. ... A thought is like lightning, it breaks up in a
moment and does not stay on....

Searching for thought all round, he does not see it within or without... Can
then thought review thought? No, thought cannot review thought. As the blade of
a sword cannot cut itself, as a finger-tip cannot touch itself, so a thought
cannot see itself. [9]

But this seems contradicted by our experience. Surely thought can review
itself; doesn't this happen often, whenever we ponder the logical implications
of some thought as part of a sequence of reasoning? The point of the passage
must be that the various thought-elements of such a sequence do not co-exist in
the mind at the same time. At any moment there can be only one thought; a
"review" of that thought, or any other thought that arises, is a
completely new thought. The next section will explore the implications of
this....

...The intentionality of "dualistic" consciousness is essential to
the nondualist, for this is implied by the claim that there is no self apart
from its experience. John Levy has elaborated this concept into what is perhaps
the classic argument against subject-object duality:

When I am conscious of an object, that is, of a notion or a precept, that
object alone is present. When I am conscious of my perceiving, what alone
presents itself to consciousness is the notion that I perceive the object: and
therefore the notion of my being the perceiver also constitutes an object of
consciousness. From this, a most important fact emerges: the so-called subject
who thinks. and its apparent object, have no immediate relation.

... the notion, I am reading, does not occur while we are thus absorbed in
reading a book: it occurs only when our attention wavers. . . .a little
reflection will show that even when we are not thus absorbed for any
appreciable lapse of time, the subject who afterwards lays claim to the action
was not present to consciousness when the action was taking place. The idea of
our being the agent occurs to us as a separate thought, which is to say that it
forms an entirely fresh object of consciousness'. And since, at the time of the
occurrence, we were present as neither the thinker, the agent, the percipient,
nor the enjoyer, no subsequent claim on our part could alter the position...

If the notions of subject and object are both the separate objects of consciousness,
neither term has any real significance. An object, in the absence of a subject,
cannot be what is normally called an object; and the subject, in the absence of
an object, cannot be what is normally called the subject. It is in memory that
the two notions seem to combine to form an entirely new notion, I am the
perceiver or the thinker. [14]

...The significance of the
Śiksāsamuccaya passage, quoted at the end of Section I,
becomes evident: If memory "wrongly interpreted" is
"synonymous" with individual existence because it is a case of
"thought reviewing thought", then the experience of each thought as
autonomous will eliminate that sense of individual existence--that is, the
sense of subject-object duality...

...But the question that arises first is in what way one can ever be attached
to thoughts if, as the Śiksāsamuccaya says, a thought has no
staying power, that like lightning it breaks up in a moment and disappears. Hui
Neng answers this later in the Platform Sutra when he says more about "how
to think":

In the exercise of our thinking faculty, let the past be dead. If we allow our
thoughts, past, present and future, to link up in a series, we put ourselves
under restraint. On the other hand, if we never let our mind attach to
anything, we shall gain liberation.
(my emphasis [21])

One clings to a thought by allowing the thoughts to link up in a series,
which means having one's next thought "caused", as it were, by the
previous thoughts, rather than letting each thought arise spontaneously and
nondually.

According to the autobiographical first part of the Platform Sutra, Hui Neng
became deeply enlightened and realized that all things in the universe are his
self-nature, upon hearing a line from the Diamond Sutra: "Let your thought
arise without fixing it anywhere". [22] The passage just prior to this
one-which Hui Neng must also have heard-puts this in context. Edward Conze
translates it as follows:

Therefore then, Subhuti, the Bodhisattva should produce an unsupported thought,
a thought which is nowhere supported, which is not supported (apratisthiti) by
forms, sounds, smells, tastes, touchables, or objects of mind. [23]

A thought is "Unsupported" because it does not arise in dependence
upon anything else, not "caused" by another thought
("mind-objects" and
of course not "produced" by a thinker, which the Bodhisattva realizes
does, not exist. Such an "unsupported thought", then, is prajña,
arising by itself nondually...

Ok, this is the part Thusness just mentioned to me again just now:

...The image of a worm hesitant to leave its hold was used in a
personal conversation I had in 1981 with a Theravada monk from Thailand, a
meditation master named Phra Khemananda. This was before I discovered the
passage from Ramana Maharshi; what Khemananda said was not prompted by any
remark of mine, but was taught to him by his own teacher in Thailand. He began
by drawing the following diagram:

Each oval represents a thought, he said; normally, we leave one thought only
when we have another one to go to (as the arrows indicate), but to think in
this way constitutes ignorance. Instead, we should realize that thinking is
actually like this:

Then we will understand the true nature of thoughts: that thoughts do not arise
from each other but by themselves.

This understanding of thoughts-not-linking-up-in-a-series but springing up
nondually is consistent with D. T. Suzuki's conception of prajna:

It is important to note here that prajna wants to see its diction
"quickly" apprehended, giving us no intervening moment for reflection
or analysis or interpretation. Prajna for this reason is frequently likened to
a flash of lightning or to a spark from two striking pieces of flint.
"Quickness" does not refer to progress of time; it means immediacy,
absence of deliberation, no allowance for an intervening proposition, no
passing from premises to conclusion. [28]...

Thusness: 09 July 2007 · 07:48 AM

Yes. When we
practice, it is not about making meaningful sense of anything. There is no
chaining of a moment of thought to the next moment, that chaining, linking and
assocating is interpretation. When we do that, immediately we are involved in a
story of becoming and the birth of time.

Only the 'I' chains and interprets, when we are free from interpretation and
identification, there is no chaining effect, there is only spontaneity and
clarity. Presence is seen as it is.

Thusness: 09 July 2007 · 08:36 AM

This is a very important passage, it is not
about sounding nice but what actually happens when we are directly experiencing
thought.

When we say ‘we are not thought’, we are not directly experiencing thought. The
luminous and emptiness nature of thought is lost. When we say ‘I am not
thought’, we are abstracting moment to moment of thought-luminosity and
personifying these momentary self-luminosities into an entity, this is the
birth of separation. Not only we missed the essence of what thought is, we identify
with a background that does not exist. By so doing we are reacting according to
momentum rather than seeing thought as it is.

There is nothing scary about impermanence; it is only the mind that wrongly
misinterprets ‘permanence’ and ‘changelessness’ as pivotal attributes of
liberation and peace. In actual fact, it is the emptiness nature that
liberates. Luminosity must be allowed to renew itself, must be allowed to arise
and subside in spontaneity for liberation to take place. A practitioner can experience
Presence yet still misinterpret Presence. Seeing what thought really is, the
transients are not discarded but correctly understood. Without rejecting
thoughts, energy is not spent on fighting against itself and one becomes
effortless and spontaneous. This is the entry into pathless.

One of
my friends, a patient I work with at the chiropractor's office, recently
became a massage therapist. She came in today to get some work and mentioned
she's noticing lately that the moment she touches a client's body, she tunes
in so easily, it scares her! - "tuning" meaning, she can sense what
is going on and know what to do without understanding how she arrived at
this. We talked a little about it.

I told her I remembered when it dawned on me that I could know things about a
person's body without touching them - just by tuning in. Like focusing into
my sister-in-law's painful back when her back was turned to me as she was
leaving the room and "seeing" exactly where the source of pain was.
And how (being totally identified with the mind) it alarmed me!! Like "I
shouldn't be able to do that!"

Other similar experiences would make me say "Whoa! I don't like this!
I'm used to taking steps to arrive at a destination. I need time to arrive. I
use logic to figure things out. When information comes full force instantly, I'm
not in control -how scary is that?!"

Ego loves to be in control. It likes to
think that IT achieves, IT makes things happen. Bodywork sometimes has a way
of blowing that idea to bits.

Yes Cheshirecat, I fully agree.

This is because we are so conditioned that whenever we analyze, we are already
fully convinced and pre-assumed the existence of time and separation -- a
deeply held truth in our inmost consciousness. That is why we can’t understand.
Wcannot experience the full essence of this non-local aspect of our pristine
awareness due to these propensities.

Passerby: Posted: Tue Jul 24, 2007 4:40 pm
Post subject:

cheshirecat
wrote:

Passerby
wrote:

Yes
Cheshirecat, I fully agree.

This is because we are so conditioned that whenever we analyze, we are
already fully convinced and pre-assumed the existence of time and
separation -- a deeply held truth in our inmost consciousness.

Very clearly and succinctly put. Thanks! When discussing these kinds of
things with people in my personal life, I often say "my experience of
time and space is that they aren't what they seem". But I never saw the
direct correlation between analyzing and the conviction of time and
separation so clearly until just now, reading your observation.

Passerby
wrote:

That
is why we can’t understand. Wcannot experience the full essence of this
non-local aspect of our pristine awareness due to these propensities.

And now nice it is to simply relax into this non-local aspect without the
need to understand.

Thanks Cheshirecat,

Glad it makes sense. Space, time, life, death, in and out are all ‘deeply held’
impressions. We are seldom aware of the
“deeply held” until we are able to rest adequately in naked awareness. The
nakedness creates the big contrast that provides us the condition for the
arising of the insight of the 'deeply held'. However my experience is insight
into the full power of our ‘propensities’ and resting in naked awareness are
both equally
crucial in our understanding of our non-dual and non-local nature.

Thanks for the DNA links. Real interesting.

Passerby: Posted: Sat Jul 28, 2007 7:30 pm
Post subject:

cheshirecat
wrote:

Passerby
wrote:

However
my experience is insight into the full power of our ‘propensities’ and
resting in naked awareness are both equally crucial in our understanding of
our non-dual and non-local nature.

Passerby, can you go into this bolded portion more deeply, please?

I do not know how to explain just that to consciousness 'propensities' (deep
conditioning or imprints) are all that matters. It is the only 'force' that
blinds, bonds and prevents a liberating experience. Once formed it remains
latent and only surface when conditions are riped for fruition. We are unable
to get rid of it by will. Therefore to know consciousness, it is also to know
the impact of deep conditioning, how it is formed and how it subsides. There is
really no 'why', it is just how consciousness works.

If we dropped our body, we experience astral body.
If we dropped our thoughts, we experience “I AM”.
If we dropped ‘I’, we experience non-duality.

Every major 'dropped' results in a totally new experiential reality. Perhaps
that is why Lao Tze teaches us to eliminate until none to experience Tao.

Passerby: Posted: Sat Jul 28, 2007 7:36 pm Post subject:

Amadeus
wrote:

My
experience is that I'm becoming more and more aware of the depth of
conditioning (propensities?) and realizing more and more that everything I
took myself to be, everything I took reality to be, is just an appearance,
just conditioning. This is not a denial of the apparent existence of
"the story" but rather a more wholesome seeing of it, including
the emptiness out of which it is arising. Nothing is denied. And yet
nothing is as it seems to be.

Yes jonls, agree with the example u gave. A good one and propensities and deep
conditioning are exchangeable terms.

There is also another ‘deep conditioning’ called cognitive obscuration in
Buddhism. Let’s take awareness for example, when we first experienced the “I
AM”, the mind very quickly ascribed all sort of attributes to that experience
according to our stored information. This tendency to objectify is also part of
deep conditioning.

It is odorless, formless, colorless, thoughtless and void of any attributes and
we unknowingly objectified these attributes into an ‘entity’ and make it an
eternal background or an emptiness void. When this is done, it prevents us from
experiencing the color, texture, fabric and manifesting nature of awareness.
Suddenly thoughts are being grouped into another category and disowned. In
actual case, thoughts think and sound hears. The observer has always been the
observed. In naked awareness, there is no splitting of attributes and
objectification of these attributes into different groups of the same
experience. So thoughts are not disowned and “impermanence nature” taken in
wholeheartedly in the experience of no-self. ‘Impermanence’ is never what it
seems to be, never what that is understood in conceptual thoughts.
‘Impermanence’ is not what the mind has conceptualized it to be. In non-dual
experience, the true face of impermanence nature is experienced as happening
without movement, change without going anywhere. This is the “what is” of
impermanence. It is just so.

Forum Topic:question about the “source”

Longchen: 26 July 2007 · 04:18
PM

quote:

Originally posted by maggot:

Still an extremely long way to trace back to the source for me

Dun need to trace back.

The Source is just too direct to be seen.

How to experience it? Don't try to escape to anywhere or wait for some
becoming. Stay 'unmoving' to the present even if it is unpleasant... and see
what happens...

Thusness: 27 July 2007 · 06:10 PM

quote:

Originally posted by longchen: Dun need to trace back.

The Source is just too direct to be seen.

So direct until no overlay is needed on top of
forms. There is no such images really. When there is complete clarity, there is
complete transparency. When there is complete tranparency, awareness shines as
forms.

quote:

How to experience it? Don't try to escape to anywhere or wait for some
becoming. Stay 'unmoving' to the present even if it is unpleasant... and see
what happens...

Even when fainting, when passing out, when death dawns, experience completely,
experience experience!

Longchen: 27 July 2007 · 10:57
PM

quote:

Originally
posted by Thusness:

Even when fainting, when passing out, when death dawns, experience completely,
experience experience!

I sincerely hope that I can be that 'zai' at the time of death

Thusness: 28 July 2007 · 09:42 AM

quote:

Originally posted by longchen:
I sincerely hope that I can be that 'zai' at the time of death

Me too!

quote:

How to experience it? Don't try to escape to anywhere or wait for some
becoming. Stay 'unmoving' to the present even if it is unpleasant... and see
what happens...

Just to add something about the 'unmoving' part.

After the experience of no-self (Buddhism non-duality):

1. First, symbolic and conceptual experiences are replaced by directness and
immediateness. Before non-dual experience, ‘directness’ and ‘immediateness’
aren’t there. The mind is unable to see the 'how of non-doing', therefore
concepts are formed.

2. Later, constant engagement in nakedness and directness will give rise to the
full blown experience of ‘Awareness as Forms” as Manifestations as Appearances.
That is from 'immediate experience' into ‘as that’ -- Awareness as Impermanence,
awareness as manifestation.

If so, then impermanence is never what it seems to be; never what that is
understood in conceptual thoughts. ‘Impermanence’ is not what the mind has
conceptualized it to be. In light of non-dual experience, the true face of
impermanence is seen -- passing without moving, change without time. This is
impermanence. A happening without movement, without going anywhere. The common
denominator is experienced.

This is the true face of what u have experienced, the unmoving experience of
our impermanence Tathagatha Nature. This also links to the meaning of karma and
reality in Buddhism. Buddhism sees a person, a bird, a flower not as 'entities'
but events or activities. Many fear the dissolution of the 'subject' and the
mind will react initially to such an insight. Allow the mind to completely
accept and not react dualistically, impermanence is exactly what that is
experienced -- clear, effortless and spontaneous. Deconstruct completely and
experience the true face of Awareness.

my 2 cents.

Longchen: 28 July 2007 · 12:43
PM

quote:

Originally posted by Thusness:
Just to add something about the 'unmoving' part.

After the experience of no-self (Buddhism non-duality):

1. First, symbolic and conceputal experiences are replaced by directness and
immediateness. Before non-dual experience, ‘directness’ and ‘immediateness’
aren’t there. The mind is unable to see the 'how of non-doing', therefore
concepts are formed.

2. Later, constant engagement in nakedness and directness will give rise to the
full blown experience of ‘Awareness as Forms” as Manifestations as Appearances.
That is from 'immediate experience' into ‘as that’ -- Awareness as
Impermanence, awareness as manifestation.

If so, then impermanence is never what it seems to be; never what that is
understood in conceptual thoughts. ‘Impermanence’ is not what the mind has conceptualized
it to be. In light of non-dual experience, the true face of impermanence is
seen -- passing without moving, change without time. This is impermanence. A
happening without movement, without going anywhere. The common denominator is
experienced.

This is the true face of what u have experienced, the unmoving experience of
our impermanence Tataghata Nature. This also links to the meaning of karma and
reality in Buddhism. Buddhism sees a person, a bird, a flower not as 'entities'
but events or activities. Many fear the dissolution of the 'subject' and the
mind will react intitially to such an insight. Allow the mind to completely
accept and not react dualistically, impermanence is exactly what that is
experienced -- clear, effortless and spontaneous. Deconstruct completely and
experience the true face of Awareness.

my 2 cents.

Hi Thusness,

Thanks for the elaboration. Point 2 is not so clear to me yet... 'Awareness as
Forms' aspect.

Thusness:
29 July 2007 · 04:01 AM

quote:

Originally posted by longchen:

Hi Thusness,

Thanks for the elaboration. Point 2 is not so clear to me yet... 'Awareness as
Forms' aspect.

A bit misleading.

It is just referring to not being trapped by our own definition of awareness and
sees it as only formless, intangible, invisible, colorless, odourless but
rather experiencing its color, smell, texture and fabric in moment to moment of
sensate experience. Seeing it as arising and ceasing flow, on the go in actual
non-dual experience in great intensity and clarity. Allowing this free
expression of our spontaneous manifesting nature is bliss.

Longchen: 29 July 2007 · 07:55 AM

Hi Thusness,

Thanks for the clarification.

I am learning to live non-dually in different kinds of situation. Quite a
challenge, even though there is awareness of the arising impression that causes
the subject-object split. Also, the mind is now more able to experience the
clear difference between dualistic engagement and non-dual mode. The non-dual
mode certainly is more blissful.

What i have noticed is that from the dualistic mode to the non-dual mode, there
is a strong bond(different for different situation). The bond is the attraction
to the dualistic perception and the initial pull away from it causes some
feeling of unpleasantness. This happens before the mind becomes willing enough
to drop the dualistic engagement.

Before any non-dual experience, there simply is no way of understanding and comparing
the differences. ..as the mind is 100% in dualistic mode.

Just a sharing of my experiences... with the hope that others can see the
benefits.

Thusness: 29 July 2007 · 02:12
PM

quote:

Originally
posted by longchen:

Just to share some of my understanding:
I am learning to live non-dually in different kinds of situation. Quite a
challenge, even though there is awareness of the arising impression that causes
the subject-object split. Also, the mind is now more able to experience the
clear difference between dualistic engagement and non-dual mode. The non-dual
mode certainly is more blissful.

Just for sharing:

Like samatha meditation, each jhana state represents a stage of bliss
associated with certain level of concentration; the bliss experienced from
insight into our nature differs.

The happiness and pleasure experience by a dualistic mind is different from
that experienced by a practitioner. “I AMness” is a higher form of happiness as
compared to a dualistic mind that continuously chatters. It is a level of bliss
associated with a state of ‘transcendence’ – a state of bliss resulting from
the experience of “formlessness, odorless, colorless, attributes and
thoughtlessness’. No-self or non-dual is higher form of bliss resulted from the
direct experience of Oneness and no-separation. It is related to the dropping
of the ‘I’. When non-dual is free from perceptions, that bliss is a form
transcendence-oneness. It is what I called transparency of non-duality.

quote:

What i have noticed is that from the dualistic mode to the non-dual mode,
there is a strong bond(different for different situation). The bond is the
attraction to the dualistic perception and the initial pull away from it causes
some feeling of unpleasantness. This happens before the mind becomes willing
enough to drop the dualistic engagement.

What we first overcome is known as the perceptive obscuration of non-duality. I
called this the bond of 'I'. It is a quantum leap in perception that the
observer is really the observed. The 'I' does not exist apart from
phenomenality.

However to factor such understanding into different kind of situations requires
the loosening of another bond, the bond of 'mine'. The ‘bond’ may not be
obvious even during hours of naked awareness but surfaces when meeting
conditions. Conditions are the mirror to what that is latently deep in
consciousness. This bond like the bond of ‘I’ is not known through analysis; it
is not about asking ‘why this and why that’ but is 'known' through a form of
‘sensing’ -- sensing with an entire mind and body. This is more to the
primordial mode of ‘knowing’ where ‘sensing’ is in the entire flow of body/mind
and conditions of arising; it is knowing on the go.

quote:

Before any non-dual experience, there simply is no way of understanding and
comparing the differences. ..as the mind is 100% in dualistic mode.

Well said! We are unable to let go of the ‘I’ before non-dual experience even
though a separate ‘I’ has always been an illusion because there is no ‘seeing’.

To say "I don't
know" and really see that I don't know is the most liberating thing today.
And then there's this extra dose of liberation with the seeing that I can't
know.

I have lots of observations lately. I've had the
realization that this is just One life. Before, that was a belief I held or
some thought I took from a teacher. But I've seen it. And yet the seeing of
that has pulled me back to this simple truth of "I don't know." I
think not knowing, and sort of watching every thought which wanted to know
something, was helpful. Possibly this sense of not knowing ties directly into
the fact that in the last awakening "experience" the sense of me
dropped away completely. But truthfully?...I don't know. This is what I think
allows the liberation is be here always, the refusal to truly grasp for
answers. But again, I don't know.

So maybe its closer to the truth to say Scott is not here
(in the same sense as before) to take any credit for what is seemingly known.
So why there may be conclusions and debate happening, the sense of me who would
have grasped onto that for an identity is all but gone.

I will have plenty of opinions about what I think I know
and what I think you know, or what I think you don't know, but that is just
drivel, in the end.

I've got lots to say today. Lots of things to talk about.
But when I look within, there isn't much that I know. And much less that I know
absolutely. And that seems to be the thing which allows this pure love to come
through. It just fills up my whole being, in every moment. In some way, that
need to know that was always there before may have been some attempt by the
mind to avoid the full weight of this very pure and big love that is now coming
through. But....I don't know.

Fully agree! We are
molded to think that we must 'know' and therefore we seek. When the 'sense of
self' is gone, there is insight about "not knowing". Peace and
calmness for example are also not about knowing anything. If we are unable to
deconstruct from this aspect of 'knowing', we will forever seek and thus,
unable to rest in effortless spontaneity.

While thought is part of
reality, thought doesn't define reality. The only thing that might say that
thought does define reality is a thought. Kinda funny.

It's amazing how quiet the mind gets when this is seen. It's like - what's there
to think about (except when needed for practical matters)? A reduction in
mental chatter appears to happen as the importance of thought is diminished.

Fully agree! Rest in
naked awareness until there is complete transparency, until awareness is
experienced as forms.

Also I think we should not underestimate the impact of the
constant chattering in a dualistic manner. If we continuously repeat
“phenomenon arises in awareness” and not “as Awareness”, even though there
never was a separation, consciousness will see as if there is a separation.
Although it may seem to be a casual expression for communication sake, the
impact is subtle. In time to come, the slow and subtle impact will make
separation appears amazingly real. This is true even for those that have
experienced non-duality; they are not spared from it.

Fully
agree! Rest in naked awareness until there is complete transparency, until
awareness is experienced as forms.

Also I think we should not underestimate the impact of the constant
chattering in a dualistic manner. If we continuously repeat “phenomenon
arises in awareness” and not “as Awareness”, even though there never was a
separation, consciousness will see as if there is a separation. Although it
may seem to be a casual expression for communication sake, the impact is
subtle. In time to come, the slow and subtle impact will make separation
appears amazingly real. This is true even for those that have experienced non-duality;
they are not spared from it.

My 2 cents.

In other words, be careful what you believe in or what you think. We tend to
have many unconscious assumptions and beliefs. It takes an awake, aware mind to
see them.

Yougarksooo: Posted: Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:51 pm Post subject:

Passerby said:

Quote:

If we
continuously repeat “phenomenon arises in awareness” and not “as Awareness”,
even though there never was a separation, consciousness will see as if there
is a separation. Although it may seem to be a casual expression for
communication sake, the impact is subtle

In other words, be careful what you believe in or what you think. We tend to
have many unconscious assumptions and beliefs. It takes an awake, aware mind
to see them.

Yes and not only that. How 'deep conditioning' can
be dissolved by being naked in awareness alone is also important. First the
mind must realise that another way of 'knowing' is possible; an effortless,
total sensing and experience of wholeness. Next the experiences of the joy,
bliss and clarity of wholeness. Without the insight into the possiblity and the
experience of the positive factors, the mind will not release itself from
holding.

Even open pure and innocent inquiry is a deep conditioning. Makes the mind chatters
incessantly. Every what, when, where and why by itself is a distancing from
start. Freeing itself from such mode of inquiry aka 'knowing', the mind rests.
The joy of this resting must be experienced for the 'willingness' to arise.

Yougarksooo: Posted: Mon Jul 30, 2007 5:52 pm Post subject:

Quote:

Even
open pure and innocent inquiry is a deep conditioning. Makes the mind
chatters incessantly. Every what, when, where and why by itself is a
distancing from start. Freeing itself from such mode of inquiry aka
'knowing', the mind rests. The joy of this resting must be experienced for
the 'willingness' to arise.

I've posted before about the fact that I have retaken a
meditation practice into my life. I sit for 25 minutes each morning, right
after waking up and doing my morning prayers. It's been quite invigorating and
settling. The format is basically zazen, with my attention directed gently, but
firmly at the feeling of being, and what it means to be. Sometimes insights
open up. Sometimes it's just pleasant.

A couple of days ago, as I was sitting and consciously
pointing my awareness at what it is to be, one of the puzzles I often grapple
with came to my mind. I don't try and rid myself of thoughts when they show up
in meditation, but instead remain still and let them do what they do. This
particular puzzle is: trying to come to a gut level acceptance of what the
great sages have said since the very beginning, "All is Silent
Awareness." That sort of bounced around and came up against the constant
practice of the inquiry, "Who am I?" On this occasion the bounce made
a spark.

Whenever I follow the question, "Who am I?" as
fas as I can, I get to a place where the first knowing is, "I am."
Everything that comes after that is reconstructed from memory or analysis of current
sensory input. It appears that the first truth, and the only continuous truth
is, "I am." That truth is true for everyone. When anyone looks
inside, the only things they cannot deny or argue away, or delude themselves
over is the fact that they exist. This is known absolutely, and is the only
thing known absolutely and at all times without variance. If there is any
knowing it first is this, "I am."

For a long time I have added the idea of Awareness on top
of that. That seems to be an error. Awareness is not composed of analysis of
being aware, not composed of thoughts made from the fact of Awareness.
Awareness is only Awareness. Awareness is this, "I am." The
assuredness of existence. I had assumed, believed, that to be aware meant
having thoughts. It doesn't. Awareness is before that. Awareness is equal with
the simple truth of being.

Objects exist. Each thing has this same authority of
being. The cushion I was sitting on, is. The bit of floor I starred at, is. The
thought, "I am," is. Everything that exists, is.

So, the first thing that anything is, is, "I
am." Suddenly all things within my Awareness were that same Awareness
sharing the same root Truth.

After I got up from my cushion I went about my morning,
barely cognizant of a shift. Something was happening, but I didn't try very
hard to put my finger on it. It was just there, and itch barely perceived. As I
sat with my wife and ate breakfast the vague itch was still there, persistent
but not annoying. I went for another sip of tea, lifted the cup and it sang,
"I am." It didn't literally sing, of course, but it did. The itch I
felt was that singing coming from all around me. The first thing that every
object, thought, feeling, encounter, interaction has to say is this singing of,
"I am." As I looked at the cup, and it looked back I said,
"huh..." My sweetie asked what was up, and I explained what I was
"hearing."

She said, "Wow, that's cool."

She was right. It is. Everything, everywhere, everywhen
sings out in this never ending chorus that issues from one place only, the
Truth. All sings, "I am."

Yougarksooo:Posted: Thu Aug 02,
2007 2:58 pm
Post subject:

Quote:

Awareness
is only Awareness. Awareness is this, "I am." The assuredness of
existence. I had assumed, believed, that to be aware meant having thoughts.
It doesn't. Awareness is before that. Awareness is equal with the simple
truth of being.

Cross
posting from my blog:
Objects exist. Each thing has this same authority of being. The cushion I was
sitting on, is. The bit of floor I starred at, is. The thought, "I
am," is. Everything that exists, is.

Just for sharing:
If that is the case, then the source has always been the manifestation,
Manifestation alone IS. An additional "I AM" on top of manifestation
is 'thought'. That referencing back to a center to re-confirm is a bad habit, a
result of deep conditioning.

Cross
posting from my blog:
Objects exist. Each thing has this same authority of being. The cushion I
was sitting on, is. The bit of floor I starred at, is. The thought, "I
am," is. Everything that exists, is.

Just for sharing:
If that is the case, then the source has alway been the manifestaion,
Manifestation alone IS. An additional "I AM" on top of
manifestation is 'thought'. That referencing back to a center to re-confirm
is a bad habit, a result of deep conditioning.

Agreed. The use of the phrase, "I am," is a convention of my language
body, just as Manifestation is for you. I believe we are saying the same thing.
Please, give my words no mind.

Lately I notice simply
loving to hear eveyone speak from experience, sharing their perpsectives. It's
beautiful, insightful. An idea is presented at the forum, and other ideas
appear to creatively offshoot from it in an ever changing kalediscope of thought.

As we know, using concepts to communicate can be limiting.
How would the color blue be conveyed in words to a person who has never been
sighted, for instance? Or the taste of chocolate be conveyed to a person who
has never been exposed to it? And without specific recognition of what the
sentences represent or point to, a wide range of interpretations can happen.

I've seen a subject mentioned in passing at the forum that
has different interpretations. And once again would like to offer questions to
the forum for further discussion, if there is interest.

Is peace personal - is there such a thing as "my
peace"? "your peace"?

Is suffering personal - is there such a thing as
"my suffering"? "your suffering"?

What do you notice? Thanks for all comments.

Amadeus: Posted: Fri Aug 03, 2007 10:34 pm Post subject:

Hi
cc,

Good questions about what is personal.

Peace, for me, was never thought of as personal or
impersonal, so it doesn't feel like a relevant question to me personally.

But there is something that comes to mind quite strongly
and that is the many feelings and sensations arising in/from the body. Lately
I've had the distinct feeling/experience that these feelings and sensations are
not personal. They are arising from or in the body but there is no longer a
very strong "personal feeling" attached to them. It's almost as if
they're just part of the landscape, part of the "now". Part of the
ground of being.

If I had to be more precise I think I would say that the
body is my vehicle, the one that I am using at the time. One day it will fall
into disrepair and I'll have to abandon it at that time. That is going to be
one hell of an experience!!!

Passerby: Posted: Fri Aug 03, 2007 11:04 pm Post subject:

Amadeus
wrote:

But there is something that comes to mind quite strongly and that
is the
many feelings and sensations arising in/from the body. Lately I've had
the distinct feeling/experience that these feelings and sensations are
not
personal. They are arising from or in the body but there is no longer a
very
strong "personal feeling" attached to them. It's almost as if
they're just part of the landscape, part of the "now". Part of the
ground of being.

Precious vipassana experience! Best when going
along with this insight:

There is thinking, no thinker
There is sound, no hearer
Suffering exists, no sufferer
Deeds there are, no doer

Perhaps 'seeing' that the body without the mental-construct of a 'body' are
really just that raw "distinct feeling/experience of feelings and
sensations". So forget about the 'body'.

Quote:

If I had to be more precise I think I would say that the body is my vehicle,
the one that I am using at the time. One day it will fall into disrepair and
I'll have to abandon it at that time. That is going to be one hell of an
experience!!!

Extrapolation were now is not!

Amadeus: Posted: Fri Aug 03, 2007 11:15 pm Post subject:

Hi passerby,

Thanks for the nice post!

Quote:

Quote:
If I had to be more precise I think I would say that the body is my vehicle,
the one that I am using at the time. One day it will fall into disrepair and
I'll have to abandon it at that time. That is going to be one hell of an
experience!!!

Extrapolation were now is not!

You'll have to forgive me for this part, I just
experienced the beautiful death of my precious mother and I guess it's still on
my mind.

However, now I can tell the truth about that experience. I have no idea what
the hell happened. I know what everyone thought happened, but I personally, am
at a total loss to say what happened. It's a complete mystery.

Yougarksooo: Posted: Sat Aug 04, 2007 7:37 am Post subject:

Quote:

Is
peace personal - is there such a thing as "my peace"? "your
peace"?

Is suffering personal - is there such a thing as "my suffering"?
"your suffering"?

There is a sense of a self here, but not a separate
self. So I don't see this as "my life." Thus, I don't see it as
"my peace" or "my suffering."

It makes no sense to me anymore to section off a part of life, over here, and
say this is mine. It goes against what is obvious to me now, which is that life
just is. One. Sure there are different manifestations of it, but once
consciousness woke up in this form, it can't be said that anything is
"mine."

Amadeus: Posted: Sat Aug 04, 2007 9:14 am Post subject:

Quote:

once
consciousness woke up in this form,

Nice way of putting it.

How about the universe wakes up to itself in this form?

Yougarksooo: Posted: Sat Aug 04, 2007 9:18
am Post
subject:

Quote:

How
about the universe wakes up to itself in this form?

That works for me. Whatever This is, which is
experienced as awakeness or oneness can't be known through my mind with
concepts. So I could call it kitty litter and it would mean the same as
"universe" or "consciousness." It just is.

Amadeus: Posted: Sat Aug 04, 2007 11:32 am Post subject:

Yougarksooo
wrote:

Quote:

How
about the universe wakes up to itself in this form?

That works for me. Whatever This is, which is experienced as awakeness or
oneness can't be known through my mind with concepts. So I could call it
kitty litter and it would mean the same as "universe" or
"consciousness." It just is.

Sounds good to me.

We're awash in a sea of kitty litter.

Yougarksooo: Posted: Sat Aug 04, 2007 1:06 pm Post subject:

Nice Ammy

CC, here is another way of looking at it for me. This
sense of separateness is no longer here (except for some old conditioning which
still comes through-but met in a very different way than before). So, at the
same time as there is not "my peace" or "my suffering" in
some ways this sense of oneness makes me see that all suffering is mine. You
are me. I am you. This is why I started the thread "you are responsible
for the war." How do I separate the war into his, hers, its problem and
divorce myself from life that way? And at the same time, I---the little me--is
responsible for the war when I attempt to separate myself from others, through
any number of means---debate, war, insensitivity, nonpresence etc.

Amadeus: Posted: Sun Aug 05, 2007 8:44 am Post subject:

Yougarksooo
wrote:

Nice Ammy

CC, here is another way of looking at it for me. This sense of separateness
is no longer here (except for some old conditioning which still comes
through-but met in a very different way than before). So, at the same time as
there is not "my peace" or "my suffering" in some ways
this sense of oneness makes me see that all suffering is mine. You are me. I
am you. This is why I started the thread "you are responsible for the
war." How do I separate the war into his, hers, its problem and divorce
myself from life that way? And at the same time, I---the little me--is
responsible for the war when I attempt to separate myself from others,
through any number of means---debate, war, insensitivity, nonpresence etc.

Let me suggest another possibility Scott,

You are saying that you are me and I am you and that oneness makes all
suffering yours.

I would like to suggest you look at these statements and consider the
possibility that identity itself is just another concept. And what identity
does, is it brings everything, all experiences, back to a center, everything is
attributed back to the center of the separate sense of self.

To fully comprehend what is being said is to be completely lost, to completely
let go, to lose one's center (that never really existed in the first place, it
was just an illusion).

What I am saying is there is no such thing as "I am", that is just
another pointer, what there truly is, is "Isness". Just pure Isness
which is what I am, what you are but completely without a center.

This, of course, can't be comprehended, one can only surrender to It.

Yougarksooo: Posted: Sun Aug 05, 2007 5:38 pm Post subject:

Quote:

You
are saying that you are me and I am you and that oneness makes all suffering
yours.

No, when I refer to making all suffering mine, I'm
referring to that which is, the One, the embodiment of the whole. Not
"mine" in the sense of a separate little me. So life, or all that is,
is our body. There is an embodiment of everything once awakening happens. The
suffering is part of the One. There is no center. No separation.

I stood up from my bed one night and my jaw dropped. I kept saying, "oh my
God, oh my God." I realized that everything is One. I was the ceiling. I
was the street out my window. I was my dog. From that point on, there is the
ongoing embodiment of that experience. The realization of no separateness. So I
cannot deny an aspect of what is. What is contains suffering in other forms out
there. This is part of the body of the One. You are right, there is no separate
self. But enlightenment can become a very self-centered, egoic trip, unless its
seen that all is One. I am the left hand. You are the right. If you get cut, I
hurt. No center. But the embodiment of the whole. Never denying a part of the
whole. See this Ammy or else enlightenment will just become Ammy's little egoic
trip up there in Canada. He gets to feel good with neat realizations, while
denying that the one life is his body, and that the other is him.

If you haven't seen this One, I mean the full seeing of it, you won't know what
I'm talking about.

Passerby: Posted: Mon Aug 06, 2007 4:58 pm Post subject:

Amadeus
wrote:

...what
identity does, is it brings everything, all experiences, back to a center,
everything is attributed back to the center of the separate sense of self.

To fully comprehend what is being said is to be completely lost, to
completely let go, to lose one's center (that never really existed in the
first place, it was just an illusion).

What I am saying is there is no such thing as "I am", that is just
another pointer, what there truly is, is "Isness". Just pure Isness
which is what I am, what you are but completely without a center.

Great insight between "Isness" and "I AM". Admire
urwillingness to drop that holding.

Just for sharing:
When the center is dropped and impersonality experienced, the manifold of
isness in all manifestation must also be fully experienced. Everything
interfuses and interpenetrates to give their very best for a manifestation to
take place. The entire universe is giving whatever it has to make a moment of
isness possible... Treasure all experiences. All
is the One Reality.

Yougarksoo: Posted: Mon Aug 06, 2007 5:21 pm Post subject:

Quote:

The
entire universe is giving whatever it has to make a moment of isness
possible... Treasure all experiences. All is the One Reality.

Passerby, its always a pleasure to read your posts. This resonates with what I
see. Never deny any aspect of all that is. Don't hide in form or formlessness.

I've had this experience lately of wanting to find someone who will reflect
back to me what I see. For what? Validation, egoic need? I've just been
embracing that movement in me... It is an aspect of the unfolding. To be
treasured, as you say.

Passerby: Posted: Mon Aug 06, 2007 5:41 pm Post subject:

Yougarksooo
wrote:

Quote:

The
entire universe is giving whatever it has to make a moment of isness
possible... Treasure all experiences. All is the One Reality.

Passerby, its always a pleasure to read your posts. This resonates with what
I see. Never deny any aspect of all that is. Don't hide in form or
formlessness.

I've had this experience lately of wanting to find someone who will reflect
back to me what I see. For what? Validation, egoic need? I've just been
embracing that movement in me... It is an aspect of the unfolding. To be
treasured, as you say.

My sentiments exactly. What you posted lately resonate deeply in me. I
thoroughly enjoy reading them. Thanks for the sharing.

"Forms don't arise within formlessness. There is just One Life. You are
THAT." (Editor: this is
Yougarksooo’s forum signature.) Truly insightful! Good stuff!

Amadeus:
Posted: Mon Aug 06, 2007 8:58
pm Post subject:

Quote:

Passerby
wrote:
When the center is dropped and impersonality experienced, the manifold of
isness in all manifestation must also be fully experienced.

Hi,

I had an experience similar to this a while back which lasted about a week or
so. But sometimes I wonder why I should continue to talk about these
experiences, especially since it's so difficult to describe them or share them
with others.

I understand that there's a certain pattern to these experiences and that one
experience can lead to another. But all experiences, are, by nature, fleeting
and also subject to interpretation by us in order to express them or even make
sense of them.

So, I guess my question is, is there anything to be gained by continuing to
share experiences?

Does the sharing of experiences lead to a quicker transformation of
consciousness or would dropping everything and letting go of the spiritual
"persona" lead to a deeper realization?

Yougarksooo: Posted:
Tue Aug 07, 2007 5:11 am Post subject:

Speaking of experience, once
I had this realization that all is One, literally seeing myself in everything,
there was a sense that I needed someone to reflect that back to me. I even had
thoughts afterwards like, "am I going crazy? What's going on?" This
may or may not explain this debate energy in me lately. I hadn't felt that in
quite a while. But its resurfaced, like an attempt to grasp the known when all
I see is that I don't know and there is no way to escape the not knowingness
into a belief.

This is what I was trying to express to Passerby. Here is
the story I've been watching in the last couple of days. The "ego"
trying to reconstitute itself, sort of. Here is this body/mind in Indiana. When
I spoke about presence or pure awareness, others were reflecting this back, so
its like my fellow "teachers" on here were saying, "yes, this is
what I experienced." But when I started talking about Oneness and seeing
myself in everything, not much response came back in the way of direct
experience.

So, it was fear leading me to look for that reflection
back. Certainly, it wasn't a "superior to" it was a fear, couple with
this need to grasp onto a knowing. Had I had a teacher right here saying, just
relax into the not knowing, the egoing might not have happened.

So I'm resting into that more now, realizing that there
are pitfalls no matter what the shift is. I'm so grateful for this forum and
the way many stick to direct experience. This is what I was sharing to Summer
yesterday when she was just being honest about her experience. In this way,
there is not a tendency here to grasp onto untrue beliefs. No cult-like stuff.
No, no, no. I want the truth. Not a comfortable blanket.

I do not think in all cases we are talking about fleeting
experiences, to stay on topic. Yes, the experience itself is fleeting. However,
these experiences sometimes clear away tons of false stuff. What's left is this
void, at which point surrender can happen, or there can be a reconstituting of
self. Awareness is key, as always, as far as I can tell. Whatever this self is
that tries to reconstitute, it is seen as even more of an illusion now, and
even more painful in its untruth. The word I've been using for this is
embodiment. I can either grasp onto an identity or false knowing through debate
(separateness), or I can embody this sense of oneness.

Passerby: Posted: Wed Aug 08, 2007 8:14 pm Post subject:

[quote="Amadeus"]

Quote:

I had
an experience similar to this a while back which lasted about a week or so.
But sometimes I wonder why I should continue to talk about these experiences,
especially since it's so difficult to describe them or share them with
others.

So, I guess my question is, is there anything to be gained by continuing to
share experiences?

Yes it is very difficult to express and prone to
misunderstanding; but also don't miss the joy when insight blossoms from shared
experiences. I almost always gain something from the posts in this forum.

Quote:

Does the sharing of experiences lead to a quicker transformation of
consciousness or would dropping everything and letting go of the spiritual
"persona" lead to a deeper realization?

My experience is realisation comes from unreserved
sharing, open reception and holding nothing. It is part of the flow.

Passerby: Posted: Wed Aug 08, 2007 8:59 pm Post subject:

Yougarksooo
wrote:

Yes, I've heard it expressed that in the unknowing, there is a sense of
knowing that comes. The notion that truth is self-confirming (and
"arriving" at that by the dropping away of all that is false).
David Carse says of this truth, "Does exist. Can't be expressed." I express it as "one." But you
are touching on this here. The knowing is not on a conceptual level really,
its a fluid, ever-changing, honest looking at what is here, all of it.

There has been this fear or lack of control driving this re-constituting of
conceptual knowledge (conclusion energy, debate energy, self), but once that
is let go again, there is that resting (honest looking). Yes, good catch, the
looking must always be honest. And at the same time, there is a knowing, but
not the warm blanket, belief type. This knowing is this love of what is, this
honest looking, which even sees the fear as telling the truth. It's not that
I know this or that. But this pure love is felt again. A love of what is.
Isn't this why we call it "resting?" This love of what is, this
knowing, is what allows the resting to occur. That little self trying to
re-constitute, blocks that. But this love is a love of what is true. It wins
everytime if there is no resistance. "Does exist. Can't be
expressed."

Enjoying the dialogue, as always. Or am I just feeling comforted in the warm
egoic validation of someone reflecting what I see back to me?

Will continue looking...

Quote:

but
there seems to be only one truth, and the nature of that truth seems to be
mirror ... that whatever I see, is me, as long as there is a "me"

Yes, I was referring to this as the conceptual overlay in "People Only
Talk About Themselves."

Agree!

Just for sharing:

‘Watching’ or “knowing” is more like a form of sensing – Sensing with our
entire whole. Even after all the beautiful experiences, the habitual tendency
to ‘overlay’ constructs on top of ‘what is’ continues. The mind continues to
define and understand symbolically. There is nothing really wrong doing this
when it is seen through, just that it is overdone -- lopsided . There is a form of training
known as insight meditation in Buddhism that trains one to sense directly in
bare attention. Diligent practice and spending some quality minutes will help
loosen this ‘habitual tendency’. For example when the feet touches the floor,
the mind does not just sweep through “hardness” but can feel the ‘hardness’,
that is, awareness as that ‘solidness’, a ‘transparent solidness’. The
intensity of sensing can create the kind of ‘knowing’ that is beyond the
‘knowing’ of the dream state (free from the senses) -- like a blind person sees
. Not only will this help to
loosen the tendency to know through defining, it will open up new dimension of
our luminous, impersonal and non-dual pristine nature. My 2 cents.

Welcome to the trap. But as long as there is a seeing of the trap...no prob.

It's when I believe there is a need to escape the trap....ouch. Embrace the
trap instead. It's part of the One. This whole excruciating, beautiful thing
called life is IT. I am that. You are that.

What did you say once, I don't want the cheese, I just want out of the trap?
This sort of "points" to this thing that can't be avoided. This
oneness. Words, forms, formlessness cannot be avoided. Manifestations of the
One. If there is a hiding in formlessness, just as if there is a hiding in
form, there is a denial of what is, all that is. Right? This is what I'm
seeing.

The vomit is me. The pretty flower is me. This silence is me. Not the little
me, but rather......That Which Is. Life. To embody that fully. Nothing denied.
Like waking up out of the sense of a separate self and then realizing even that
is not a problem. Never was. Not in me. Not in you. It just is.

Passerby: Posted: Sun Aug 05, 2007 8:21 pm Post subject:

Yougarksooo
wrote:

Quote:

see,
that was a pointer ... useless

Welcome to the trap. ..This sort of "points" to this thing that
can't be avoided. This oneness. Words, forms, formlessness cannot be avoided.
Manifestations of the One. If there is a hiding in formlessness, just as if
there is a hiding in form, there is a denial of what is, all that is...
.
.
The vomit is me. The pretty flower is me. This silence is me. ..That Which
Is. Life. To embody that fully. Nothing denied. Like waking up out of the
sense of a separate self and then realizing even that is not a problem. Never
was. Not in me. Not in you. It just is.

Good stuff and truly insightful!

A preference of formless over forms turns out to be a denial of what is.
Another 'distancing' packaged to appear closer to the One Reality. All is the
One reality, non is purer than the other.

Thanks for sharing.

Yougarksooo: Posted: Sun Aug 05, 2007 9:09 pm
Post subject:

Quote:

but
"beingness" and "oneness" and "joyful
blissness" hardly look like pointers to a hammer and me ... but neither
does moving away from the hammer to pick something "easier" ...

Right, well said. The futility of ever believing that words can truly explain
this. They help. David Carse says, "imagine people living in a two
dimensional world. Then, a three dimensional being comes along and tries to
explain to the people what three dimensional life is like." It has to be
experienced.

Quote:

Krishnamurti
and others would say "it doesnt come invited" ... you are saying
there comes this opportunity ... how? from where? what do I need to do to get
to this opportunity? are you saying there is something other than the
looking, for pre-opportunity? it doesnt make sense that there would be - so
again, JK would stay away from pointing to opportunity entirely ... he would
inquire to make space - I guess others like to point to opportunity - but
that creates grasping after pre-opportunity - so why even say it? why even
talk about it ... is there nothing but these pointers and promises? ...

see what Im saying?

Yes I see. And to the extent that it appears that I
believe a person can do anything to bring about the opportunity, I could never
say that. Tolle comes very close to living up to the PON's subtitle "A
Guide To Spiritual Enlightenment." A lot of people who have read his book
are realizing the pure beingness within. This is what I mean by formlessness.
Some seem to get stuck in this pure awareness bit. But with oneness, there is a
corresponding seeing that all is One. This uninvited other deepening experience
of realizing that all is One is where I think most teachers jump off. They
aren't willing, honestly, to say they know how that happens. Even Tolle seems
to back off on that. Yet most of them speak of having experienced that, and
then teach from the resulting embodiment of that.

But yes, on some level, it becomes mushy to try to convey this marriage of form
and formlessness with only concepts and words (forms). This is the trap.
Maharshi tried to convey the teaching through silence only, right?

Nothing ever happened before right now.
This moment is entirely new – a clean slate.

This moment is totally free of pre-existing content.
It is spacious, clear, and empty.
So the concerns you have now, to what do they refer?

Everything about right now never happened before.
This moment doesn’t know anything about the past.
This moment knows no yesterday of “you.”
It has no past hurts, it has no grudges, no scores to settle.

This sight has never been seen before.
This sound has never been heard before.
This thought has never been thought before.

This is life.
Not burdened by anything at all.
Pure Being, spontaneously arising right now, free and clear.
No person, no events, no suffering.
Notice it now. There’s nothing more to seek.
It’s just this, and it’s already your life.

Annette Nibley

Passerby: Posted: Wed Aug 08, 2007 7:19 pm Post subject: Re: Life

Wonderful quotes!

Reminds me of dharma seals -- impermanence.

Explains how the ‘brief of a moment’ creates the sense of
permanence and timelessness experientially -- by being completely new, entire
and gone instantaneously! Open reception, total let go!

Amadeus: Posted: Thu Aug 09, 2007 3:18 pm Post subject: Re: Life

Passerby
wrote:

Wonderful
quotes!

Reminds me of dharma seals -- impermanence.

Explains how the ‘brief of a moment’ creates the sense of permanence and
timelessness experientially -- by being completely new, entire and gone
instantaneously! Open reception, total let go!

((((passerby))))

Passerby: Posted: Thu Aug 09, 2007 3:41 pm Post subject: Re: Life

Amadeus
wrote:

Passerby
wrote:

Wonderful
quotes!

Reminds me of dharma seals -- impermanence.

Explains how the ‘brief of a moment’ creates the sense of permanence and
timelessness experientially -- by being completely new, entire and gone
instantaneously! Open reception, total let go!

Have
you ever had the experience of the personality falling away and all that
remains is a field of awareness?

It happened again today.

It makes me realize that the only salient fact is "I
am". Nothing else is that important.

It also makes me remember this:

In the full Satguru, all AMness has disappeared except
that miniscule energy necessary for the bodymind to remain in appearance.
Essentially, when they are on their own, they are like the perfectly calm
pond in absolute peace. No thoughts, as we would recognize them. When somebody
appears before them, a ripple is created on the pond to give them sufficient
appearance of personality to interact. Once the interaction is completed, they
return to silence. We are not capable of understanding what that really
means, or feels like.

The ‘I’ of the of the ‘I AM’ in the Jnani now disappears
as well. Remember that the ‘I’ was the perceiver of the ‘AM’. In the Satguru,
there is no concept of a perceiver in the first stages of Satguru. There is
only ‘perceiving’ happening. At full Satguru even the ‘perceiving’ ceases. Now
there is only ‘IS’. This is beyond conceptualization with the mind. Further, as their ‘natural’ personality disappears, the
personality of those around them seems to disappear. They perceive less and
less distinctions of individual personalities. Eventually, they literally
disappear as a personality to others, and the other personalities effectively
disappear to them.All goals, desires, and concepts have fallen away.
Dis-passion (impartiality) deepens

Have
you ever had the experience of the personality falling away and all that
remains is a field of awareness?

It happened again today.

It makes me realize that the only salient fact is "I am". Nothing
else is that important.

It also makes me remember this:

In the full Satguru, all AMness has disappeared except that miniscule energy
necessary for the bodymind to remain in appearance. Essentially, when they
are on their own, they are like the perfectly calm pond in absolute peace.
No thoughts, as we would recognize them. When somebody appears before them, a
ripple is created on the pond to give them sufficient appearance of
personality to interact. Once the interaction is completed, they return to
silence. We are not capable of understanding what that really means, or
feels like.

The ‘I’ of the of the ‘I AM’ in the Jnani now disappears as well. Remember
that the ‘I’ was the perceiver of the ‘AM’. In the Satguru, there is no
concept of a perceiver in the first stages of Satguru. There is only
‘perceiving’ happening. At full Satguru even the ‘perceiving’ ceases. Now
there is only ‘IS’. This is beyond conceptualization with the mind. Further, as their ‘natural’ personality disappears, the personality of
those around them seems to disappear. They perceive less and less
distinctions of individual personalities. Eventually, they literally
disappear as a personality to others, and the other personalities effectively
disappear to them.
All goals, desires, and concepts have fallen away. Dis-passion (impartiality)
deepens

Wonderful experience! With personality there is
always perceiver and percieving, without it, only the obvious manifestation,
nothing on top or behind manifestion! Rest naked, don't ask or answer anything.

So is there a PasserBy talking to u?
In isness yes, in thinking no. Isness is full of trust and 'thinking' is full
of suspicions. In complete surrendering, there is full trust. Impersonality
does not alienate.

So is there a PasserBy talking to u?
In isness yes, in thinking no. Isness is full of trust and 'thinking' is full
of suspicions. In complete surrendering, there is full trust. Impersonality
does not alienate.

Yes, I know what you mean, Isness is pure
simplicity. With absolutely no interpretation, just "what is".
Perhaps a better way to say it would be perhaps, not that Isness is full of
trust, but rather that it is prior to trust and doubt.

Yes, I know what you mean, Isness is pure simplicity. With absolutely no
interpretation, just "what is". Perhaps a better way to say it
would be perhaps, not that Isness is full of trust, but rather that it is
prior to trust and doubt.

Yes what u said is more accurate.

First there is personality,
then there is impersonality,
is there a way to take up roles and personality yet remain impersonal, like
re-dirtying hands in a world of samsara?

and

Is there deep confusion when we engaged in "I, no I, you, no you..."
type of analysis but when we re-enter isness everything seems fine? If yes,
then care to share why...if not, then nvm...

Yes, I know what you mean, Isness is pure simplicity. With absolutely no
interpretation, just "what is". Perhaps a better way to say it
would be perhaps, not that Isness is full of trust, but rather that it is
prior to trust and doubt.

Yes what u said is more accurate.

First there is personality,
then there is impersonality, is there a way to take up roles and personality yet remain impersonal,
like re-dirtying hands in a world of samsara?

Yes there is passerby, by fully loving and
accepting and opening up to the manifesting ego and all relationships that
arise within.

The impersonality is in the acceptance or the space created which allows a
certain amount of detachment.

Thank you for the question.

and

Quote:

Is
there deep confusion when we engaged in "I, no I, you, no you..."
type of analysis but when we re-enter isness everything seems fine? If yes,
then care to share why...if not, then nvm...

The ego is constantly trying to reinvent itself, whenever any deep insight
happens, the ego tries to claim for it's own, tries to understand what is
happening and tries to reformulate it's "world view" with the new
insight processed along with it. This whole process can be seen for what it is
and allowed to happen, there needs to be a certain space or detachment from
what is arising for this to happen. It's all about remaining present and being
aware of what is arising without completely identifying with it. Simply
allowing it to happen. Beyond and deeply within all of this manifestation is
the isness Itself which never has a problem with anything that is arising.

What do you think passerby?

Am I seeing things correctly?

Amadeus: Posted: Wed Aug 15, 2007 12:35 pm Post subject:

Quote:

Is
there deep confusion when we engaged in "I, no I, you, no you..."
type of analysis but when we re-enter isness everything seems fine? If yes,
then care to share why...if not, then nvm...

I'm not happy with my previous answer, so I'll try
again.

The mind is constantly dealing in concepts and beliefs and to me, that feels
like a house of mirrors. There is no clarity there in thought, it's all about
separation, about limitations. So trying to understand the "no me"
through the "me" (thought) leads to confusion which is ok since
eventually you understand that you can never get this. So you relax and stop
trying and then something else can happen, clarity can arise in which it is
seen that nothing needs to be "had" since everything is ok as it is
right now. Which, to me, is another way of saying you reenter isness.

Why everything is fine in isness?

Isness is a place where there is no problem, everything is as it is. Very
simple, very immediate. Nothing at all to think about. It's beyond experience
which can come and go.

Passerby: Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2007 1:47 pm Post subject:

Amadeus
wrote:

Quote:

Is
there deep confusion when we engaged in "I, no I, you, no you..."
type of analysis but when we re-enter isness everything seems fine? If yes,
then care to share why...if not, then nvm...

I'm not happy with my previous answer, so I'll try again.

The mind is constantly dealing in concepts and beliefs and to me, that feels
like a house of mirrors. There is no clarity there in thought, it's all about
separation, about limitations. So trying to understand the "no me"
through the "me" (thought) leads to confusion which is ok since
eventually you understand that you can never get this.

I agree with what you said in both your posts. Just to add that the 'self' has
also this amazing power to 'blind' itself.

Quote:

Why everything is fine in isness?

Isness is a place where there is no problem, everything is as it is. Very
simple, very immediate. Nothing at all to think about.

Yes. Too short to have time and too direct to have
thoughts. The simplicity, immediacy and spontaneity create the effortlessness
sensation. But think you missed the 'very very real' aspect of isness and what
happens when this 'very very real' is impersonal. It is also the manifold of
this 'very real' that is experienced as 'things'. Not as a form of perception
but as direct experiential reality. I think insight into the eagerness of the
ego to touch this very 'real' of itself through thought construct and the whole
lot of problems that follows it is extremely important too.

Quote:

It's
beyond experience which can come and go.

There is no beyond but there is this sensation of
changelessness and permanence because there is no-gap between isness and the
transients. Isness is the coming and going. There is change, no changing thing.

Originally posted by JonLS:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the full Satguru, all AMness has disappeared except that
miniscule energy necessary for the bodymind to remain in
appearance. Essentially, when they are on their own, they are like
the perfectly calm pond in absolute peace. No thoughts, as we would
recognize them. When somebody appears before them, a ripple is
created on the pond to give them sufficient appearance of
personality to interact. Once the interaction is completed, they
return to silence. We are not capable of understanding what that
really means, or feels like.
The I of the I AM in the Jnani now disappears as well. Remember
that the I was the perceiver of the AM. In the Satguru, there
is no concept of a perceiver in the first stages of Satguru. There
is only perceiving happening. At full Satguru even the
perceiving ceases. Now there is only IS. This is beyond
conceptualization with the mind.
Further, as their natural personality disappears, the personality
of those around them seems to disappear. They perceive less and
less distinctions of individual personalities. Eventually, they
literally disappear as a personality to others, and the other
personalities effectively disappear to them.
All goals, desires, and concepts have fallen away. Dis-passion
(impartiality) deepens.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Think this article only managed to illustrate the
'impersonality' aspect after the complete dissolving of the 'I' and
'Amness' at the Satguru stage. Nevertheless conventional language
is grossly inadequate to describe a world void of a subject-object dichotomy. Essentially the world of 'what is' is a world of
spontaneous happening, it is a world of vivid clear happening that
never remains. Words like 'rebirth' instead of 'reincarnation',
'karma' and 'emptiness' are invented for such purpose. Religion
like Buddhism is more equipped with words to describe such a world.

The entire concept of 'Self' is learnt, live as if 'we' never
existed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I kinda feel now that when someone posts that
I like to enter the reality of the poster, to feel what they feel, see what
they see, smell what they smell.... I guess what I'm saying is I am the other
poster and when I commune with them that way, then whatever answer arises is
totally spontaneous.

The old way I used to do it, is I had my own point of
view, beliefs, structure and would compare my experience to theirs and see what
would come of that and post about it.

I
kinda feel now that when someone posts that I like to enter the reality of
the poster, to feel what they feel, see what they see, smell what they
smell.... I guess what I'm saying is I am the other poster and when I commune
with them that way, then whatever answer arises is totally spontaneous.

The old way I used to do it, is I had my own point of view, beliefs,
structure and would compare my experience to theirs and see what would come
of that and post about it.

Only to poster, human or to anything? To directly
'sense' and touch the "realness" of anything form or formless,
visible or invisible? To 'see' smell and 'touch' sound. The intensity of embodiment.

I
kinda feel now that when someone posts that I like to enter the reality of
the poster, to feel what they feel, see what they see, smell what they
smell.... I guess what I'm saying is I am the other poster and when I
commune with them that way, then whatever answer arises is totally
spontaneous.

The old way I used to do it, is I had my own point of view, beliefs,
structure and would compare my experience to theirs and see what would come
of that and post about it.

Only to poster, human or to anything? To directly 'sense' and touch the
"realness" of anything form or formless, visible or invisible? To
'see' smell and 'touch' sound. The intensity of embodiment.

Wow!

That's amazing passerby,

This openness can be applied to everything. I never thought of that till you
mentioned it, but it makes complete sense to me.

Today, when I was walking I was actually afraid to run into someone I may know.
I felt so open, so vulnerable. I felt like my heart, my being was wide open. It
felt like I was pure love. And I felt the ego react with fear to this, wanting
to protect itself, to put on a "face" so that others wouldn't see how
vulnerable I was.

Today, when I was walking I was actually afraid to run into someone I may
know. I felt so open, so vulnerable. I felt like my heart, my being was wide
open. It felt like I was pure love. And I felt the ego react with fear to
this, wanting to protect itself, to put on a "face" so that others
wouldn't see how vulnerable I was.

Sometimes you have to be more ‘daring’…instead of surrendering, u see God,
touch God and eat God. When you give up ‘I AM’ or the sense of self, God
reciprocates and is entirely at your total disposal.

The Now is the moment suspended between the past and
future. We can cut the physical duration of the Now down smaller and smaller.
Essentially, the Now is infinitesimally small. An analogy is to a point of a
line, which is infinitely small.

But, if the Now is infinitely small, that means that the
number of moments of the Now is infinite. Which means that the Now is infinite,
which is what Tolle says.

I'm not playing with words here. And since we dwell in the
Now, this means that our existence is infinite.

David

Passerby: Posted: Sun Aug 19, 2007 2:23 am Post subject:

David
wrote:

I
think there's a really interesting issue here.

The Now is the moment suspended between the past and future. We can cut the
physical duration of the Now down smaller and smaller. Essentially, the Now
is infinitesimally small. An analogy is to a point of a line, which is
infinitely small.

But, if the Now is infinitely small, that means that the number of moments of
the Now is infinite. Which means that the Now is infinite, which is what
Tolle says.

I'm not playing with words here. And since we dwell in the Now, this means
that our existence is infinite.

David

And the famous Zeno paradox. Isn't this also means that before one moment can
become the next moment, it will take infinitely long since each smaller slice
of the moment takes time no matter how small it is. The sum of an infinite
limited quantity of time slice between 2 moments will be infinitely long, so
the next moment can never take place!
Sounds logical but we now know its logical inadequacy in the mathematics of
infinity. Yet it puzzled great thinkers even of Descartes's calibre.

Forum Topic:Third Eye Meditation

Longchen: 24 August 2007 · 10:12 AM

AEN ask me to add something... so I will try

Just my expereince...

Meditation is really a process of self-discovery. Eventually, we will discovery
that our experience is entirely made up of sensations, perceptions and
feelings. That's it.

In fact, 'self' is the last or end result of a series of process in the
formation of consciousness. This is contrary to the conventional assumed way of
understanding life and things. We THINK that we(self) is experiencing the
world... The fact is, the self is the 'being experienced' after a series of
entirely impersonal process.

It is not the self that grasps or clings. 'Self' itself is grasping and
clinging. .. and therefore is not a thing at all.

At a certain stage of progress, there is a sense of futilty in trying to
'control', grasp events. Conventional happiness comes in the fulfilling of
objective. However, the joy/bliss of 'no-self' is a different type of
expereince from conventional happiness... Note: I am not implying that
conventional happiness is something that needs to be avioded...no. It is just
that the expereince is different. Joy of no-self comes from the dropping away
of grasping which is self. This is easier said that done, I can atest to the
difficulty in very trying situations... there is still a whole lot of grasping
at very difficult situations and mental reasoning kicks in to justified the
worrying and grasping... ( i am not there yet)

regards

Thusness: 26 August 2007 · 12:03 AM

quote:

Originally posted by longchen:
Meditation is really a process of self-discovery. Eventually, we will discovery
that our experience is entirely made up of sensations, perceptions and
feelings. That's it.

Indeed! The 5 aggregates are the very buddha
nature. Yet it requires the experience of non-duality to have insight to this
plain truth. It is too easy to understand and not pleasing to the a complex
mind so we tend to read past what the Buddha said.

quote:

In fact, 'self' is the last or end result of a series of process in the
formation of consciousness. This is contrary to the conventional assumed way of
understanding life and things. We THINK that we(self) is experiencing the
world... The fact is, the self is the 'being experienced' after a series of
entirely impersonal process.

I understand the essence of it. Just to add a little. After a series of entirely
impersonal process, isness is experienced. Only when the process is made
'personal', 'Self' is experienced and perhaps after the formation of
perception. That is after the assigning of a label and identification done.

quote:

It is not the self that grasps or clings. 'Self' itself is grasping and
clinging. .. and therefore is not a thing at all.

At a certain stage of progress, there is a sense of futilty in trying to
'control', grasp events. Conventional happiness comes in the fulfilling of
objective. However, the joy/bliss of 'no-self' is a different type of
expereince from conventional happiness... Note: I am not implying that
conventional happiness is something that needs to be avioded...no. It is just
that the expereince is different. Joy of no-self comes from the dropping away
of grasping which is self.

Fully agree.

quote:

This is easier said that done, I can atest to the difficulty in very trying
situations... there is still a whole lot of grasping at very difficult
situations and mental reasoning kicks in to justified the worrying and grasping

Very true and spending quality hours in 'naked
awareness' in meditation each day will help. Until it replaces mental reasoning
as the one antidote for all worries and confusions.

Longchen: 26 August 2007 · 12:31 AM

Hi Thusness,

Thanks for the sharing

regards

Forum Topic:Enlightenment

JonLS: 23 August 2007 · 03:35 AM

quote:

Realise enlightenment is impossible. If you
could be unenlightened one moment, and enlightened the next, then enlightenment
would be bound by time, would be given substance by its opposite, would be dual,
would be some ‘thing’ to be attained. You do not need to be something more.
Forget the need and hope. Awake is what you are, not what you become.

Be willing to notice. Look at the stars, the wind, the romp of birds through
the sky. Be willing to be free. Forget the sutras, the wise sayings, the path,
the seriousness, the pain, the wars, the relationships, the imagined problems.
Forget your objections. Hush for a moment; gently, with arms wide and open,
notice the absence of anything but Life.

Be. Realize that only the ego wants to awaken. And be done with it.

quote:

“You are not ready to accept the fact that
you have to give up. A complete and total ’surrender’…. It is a state of
hopelessness which says that there is no way out…. Any movement in any
direction, on any dimension, at any level, is taking you away from Yourself…”
–U.G. Krishnmurti

quote:

For me the first realisation of
enlightenment, or of the nature of who I really am, is not something that can
be expressed. What happened cannot even be called an experience, because the
separate experiencer needed to be absent for it to emerge.

However, what accompanied that happening was a realisation of such simple
magnitude and revolutionary content that it left me awestruck and quite alone.

One of the things I came to see is that enlightenment only becomes available
when it has been accepted that it cannot be achieved.

Doctrines, processes and progressive paths which seek enlightenment only
exacerbate the problem they address by reinforcing the idea that the self can
find something that it presumes it has lost. It is that very effort, that
investment in self-identity that continuously recreates the illusion of
separation from oneness. This is the veil that we believe exists. It is the
dream of individuality.

...

Life is not a task. There is absolutely nothing to attain except the
realisation that there is absolutely nothing to attain.

No amount of effort will ever persuade oneness to appear. All that is needed is
a leap in perception, a different seeing, already inherent but unrecognised.

Essentially the experience of enlightenment brings with it the sudden
comprehension that there is no-one and nothing to be enlightened. Enlightenment
simply is. ... All and everything is oneness, and all that we do is get in its
way by trying to find it.

More Tony,

quote:

Aliveness, there' s only ever aliveness. No
matter where you go or what you do, you can't achieve aliveness, you can't
learn to see aliveness. There is just aliveness. You don't need anybody to tell
you that, you don't ever need to come to another meeting to find out all there
is is aliveness. It already is that.

Because we think we are individuals living in something or other, we're always
looking for something else.

We have a picture of what we're looking for, which isn't "this" .
(pointing to right here, right now)

So hardly ever is there just the seeing of " this". There's always a
living in anticipation of something to come.

What we don't realize is "this" is what we're looking for.

And it's constantly... here!

It is constantly what is, rather what could be.

-----------------------------------------------------------

But the idea of "you" is being reinforced all the time. The emphasis
is that there is someone there; everything in the world goes on emphasizing
that there is someone there. The pretence of "me" goes on being
reinforced even in the search for enlightenment, because what a so-called
master will say to you is, "I have become enlightened - I am an
enlightened person and can become an enlightened person". You - this
pretend "you"! It's a total utter fallacy because awakening is the
realisation that there is no one - it's as simple as that. It's totally and
utterly simple, and also very difficult.

Awakening is the realisation that all that's been happening - the whole idea of
there being a "me" - is a pretence. You're actually pretending to sit
there and look at me. You 're pretending that you're sitting there looking at
me and trying to get something.

An Eternal Now: 23 August 2007 · 03:51 AM

Thanks for sharing!

If one gives up the untrue,
turns towards the real and gives up concepts,
abides in brilliance without self or other,
even ordinary people and aryas will be equivalent.
When one abides in unchanging stability,
from then on there is no need to follow what is taught in texts.

--1st Patriarch of Chinese Zen, Bodhidharma, The Treatise on the Two Entrances
and Four Practices

However my advise is before that, read sutras, they contain good pointers And continue to read after that

JonLS: 23
August 2007 · 04:01 AM

Hi AEN,

quote:

When one abides in unchanging stability,
from then on there is no need to follow what is taught in texts.

How does one abide in unchanging stability?

“You are not ready to accept the fact that you have to give up. A complete and
total ’surrender’…. It is a state of hopelessness which says that there is no
way out…. Any movement in any direction, on any dimension, at any level,
is taking you away from Yourself…”

Let go of the search, let go of the sutras.

Just "be".

quote:

But the idea of "you" is being
reinforced all the time. The emphasis is that there is someone there;
everything in the world goes on emphasizing that there is someone there. The
pretence of "me" goes on being reinforced even in the search
for enlightenment...

,

An Eternal Now: 23 August 2007 · 04:05 AM

quote:

Originally posted by JonLS: How does one abide in unchanging stability?

Yes it is possible. But as much as I would not like to say, there is no
what, where, when, why and how. Sounds senseless but it is true. These are what
Naturalness is not.

Nevertheless, the mind will be stubbornly attached to this current mode of
knowing because to the mind, it is all there is. It seems to be a destined
journey that a sincere seeker has to continue penetrate its own depth, till it
completely exhaust itself and meet its own DEATH. The death of the 'I'.

The giving up and full understanding of the poverty of the entire thinking and
analytical mechanism will allow the mind to rest itself upon nothing. Here
karmic tendency arises and ceases as it is, no effort to struggle is made.
This is the time effortless knowing arise. A complete clarity of ISness
manisfesting as pure Presence.

Seek deep into the depth of our own self, there is always this Will,
Effort..etc. This Unwillingless to let go, to be.
Simply put, it is this that separates.

Lastly try not to find a sit in the body. The true nature fills all space.
Creating a boundary for What that is neither within nor without will eventually
prove futile. Presence finds itself in Otherness. The body has created the
illusion of 'inward' and divides. We have engaged ourselves in too much
analysis and lost our intuitiveness and directness. Since u have experienced
the pure Presence, sense the 'I' that holds and let go immeidately.
Presense always IS.

It is what is known as 'wu wei' (non-action)

An Eternal Now: 23 August 2007 · 04:08 AM

quote:

Originally posted by JonLS: “You are not ready to accept the fact that you have to give up. A complete
and total ’surrender’…. It is a state of hopelessness which says that there is
no way out…. [b]Any movement in any direction, on any dimension, at any
level, is taking you away from Yourself…”

Let go of the search, let go of the sutras.

Just "be". [/b]

Yes. And indeed sutras are just pointers... Though if you point the moon to the
cat, it will probably come and sniff your fingers instead

Thusness: 23 August 2007 · 08:37 AM

quote:

Realise enlightenment is impossible. If you could be unenlightened one moment,
and enlightened the next, then enlightenment would be bound by time, would be
given substance by its opposite, would be dual, would be some ‘thing’ to be
attained. You do not need to be something more.

Stories that creates more propensities unknowningly
by trying to statisfy dualistic mind.

quote:

Be willing to notice. Look at

Attempting impossibility.

quote:

the stars, the wind, the romp of birds through the sky.

This is sutra.

quote:

Be willing to be free. Forget the sutras, the wise sayings, the path, the
seriousness, the pain, the wars, the relationships, the imagined problems.
Forget your objections. Hush for a moment; gently, with arms wide and open,
notice the absence of anything but Life.

Fallen into experience and attempting
impossibility.

quote:

Be. Realize that only the ego wants to awaken. And be done with it.

Always is, no be. Ego is the wanting.

Thusness: 23 August 2007 · 08:44 AM

quote:

Originally
posted by JonLS:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For me the first realisation of enlightenment, or of the nature of who I really
am, is not something that can be expressed. What happened cannot even be called
an experience, because the separate experiencer needed to be absent for it to
emerge.

However, what accompanied that happening was a realisation of such simple
magnitude and revolutionary content that it left me awestruck and quite alone.

One of the things I came to see is that enlightenment only becomes available
when it has been accepted that it cannot be achieved.

Doctrines, processes and progressive paths which seek enlightenment only exacerbate
the problem they address by reinforcing the idea that the self can find
something that it presumes it has lost. It is that very effort, that investment
in self-identity that continuously recreates the illusion of separation from
oneness. This is the veil that we believe exists. It is the dream of
individuality.

...

Life is not a task. There is absolutely nothing to attain except the
realisation that there is absolutely nothing to attain.

No amount of effort will ever persuade oneness to appear. All that is needed is
a leap in perception, a different seeing, already inherent but unrecognised.

Tony Parsons, The Open Secret, pp4-5

Beautifully expressed.

quote:

Aliveness, there' s only ever aliveness. No matter where you go or what you do,
you can't achieve aliveness, you can't learn to see aliveness. There is just
aliveness. You don't need anybody to tell you that, you don't ever need to come
to another meeting to find out all there is is aliveness...

Tony Parsons, The Open Secret

Beautiful and thanks for sharing!

Thusness: 23 August 2007 · 08:47 AM

Care to share ur experience of the shift from "I
AM" to "impersonal mere happening"...

JonLS: 25 August
2007 · 05:02 AM

quote:

Originally posted by Thusness: Care to share ur experience of the shift from "I AM" to
"impersonal mere happening"...

Before, there was a person who was aware that he
existed. This fact was the most important fact, he thought.

But then this person became less and less, and now all that's left, much of
time, is "simply this", whatever is arising.

The person still arises from time to time, but he suffers from a great deal of
confusion when he does, he doesn't know whether he's coming or going. But that
doesn't really matter anymore because he doesn't take himself all that
seriously anymore.

What arises most often is "Isness".

But there is no need to stay there, life is much too dynamic.

Thusness: 25
August 2007 · 11:28 PM

quote:

Originally posted by JonLS:

Before, there was a person who was aware that he existed. This fact was the
most important fact, he thought.

But then this person became less and less, and now all that's left, much of
time, is "simply this", whatever is arising.

The person still arises from time to time, but he suffers from a great deal of
confusion when he does, he doesn't know whether he's coming or going. But that
doesn't really matter anymore because he doesn't take himself all that
seriously anymore.

Agree. It “doesn’t really matter” because ‘symbolic
meaning’ is realized as the cause of confusion. The need to explain subsides
and gave way to an impersonal mirror bright sensation. The need to explain is
only relevant conventionally but not ultimately. Although the exact cause of
confusion is not clearly discerned, the root cause of confusion is intuitively
understood by resting in naked awareness.

quote:

What arises most often is "Isness".

But there is no need to stay there, life is much too dynamic.

This is because the nature of isness is
impermanence. Even the experience of this impersonal mirror bright
clarity cannot dissolve the illusion of permanence. Isness does not remain and
the inability to cope with the mere speed of this ‘instantly gone’ will create
the sense of self. It is reinforced by the habitual tendency to ‘recall’ and
‘reconfirm’...when isness is clearly seen as the arising and ceasing itself,
sense of self ceases.

JonLS: 26 August
2007 · 04:23 AM

Hi Thusness,

quote:

Agree. It “doesn’t really matter” because
‘symbolic meaning’ is realized as the cause of confusion.

Always there was a need to know. But now, knowing
is seen for what it is, just a need to know. It's in the nature of the separate
sense of self to know things, that's how it "holds" itself together
conceptually.

quote:

The need to explain subsides and gave way
to an impersonal mirror bright sensation.

Impersonal mirror bright sensation can also be
called an "inner knowing" or "peace" itself. You use
different words than I do, but I recognize what you are saying.

quote:

Although the exact cause of confusion is
not clearly discerned, the root cause of confusion is intuitively understood by
resting in naked awareness.

It seems to me that the root cause of confusion is
the mind's tendency to grasp, to know. And when that is seen through, then
confusion seems to arise. But not all the time, only at times when the separate
sense of self reasserts itself.

quote:

the root cause of confusion is intuitively
understood by resting in naked awareness.

Agreed!

quote:

This is because the nature of isness is
impermanence. Even the experience of this impersonal mirror bright clarity
cannot dissolve the illusion of permanence. Isness does not remain and the
inability to cope with the mere speed of this ‘instantly gone’ will create the
sense of self. It is reinforced by the habitual tendency to ‘recall’ and
‘reconfirm’...when isness is clearly seen as the arising and ceasing itself,
sense of self ceases.

Thank you for this, it sounds good to me. These
days, there is a "seeing" of deep layers of conditioning, or
"bonds" as I think you call them. Feelings and thoughts that had
simply been accepted as a part of life are now seen for what they are, simply
thoughts and feelings that have escaped scrutiny before because of the deep
unconscious identification with them.

Thusness: 26
August 2007 · 11:45 AM

quote:

Originally posted by JonLS:
Always there was a need to know. But now, knowing is seen for what it is, just
a need to know. It's in the nature of the separate sense of self to know
things, that's how it "holds" itself together conceptually.

Yes. There is a need to know because there are
conditions for this type of conventional knowing to arise but it limitations
are seen through. It is not the right tool for experiencing our pristine nature
but it is the right tool for other purposes. A wrong fit creates the confusion.

quote:

Impersonal mirror bright sensation can also be called an "inner
knowing" or "peace" itself. You use different words than I do,
but I recognize what you are saying.

It seems to me that the root cause of confusion is the mind's tendency to
grasp, to know. And when that is seen through, then confusion seems to arise.
But not all the time, only at times when the separate sense of self reasserts
itself.

I would say suffering comes with grasping whereas confusion comes when we dwell
into symbolic meaning. In isness, there is no overlay and therefore confusion
does not arise. “Inner knowing” is a wide open whole body/mind sensing void of
the sense of self. More of an immediate and direct perception.

For example with the stabilizing of non-dual experience, when someone said
“enlightenment has no attainment”, there is an instant knowing of what it
meant. A spontaneous and immediate knowing as if it is a plain fact of reality
that is experienced and lived in every moment. That is the feeling. That is the
heart to heart communication. "Making sense" comes later as a
convenient way to explain in conventional terms by fitting into the framework
of our thinking mechanism. This may not be a good example though.

quote:

These days, there is a "seeing" of deep layers of conditioning, or
"bonds" as I think you call them. Feelings and thoughts that had
simply been accepted as a part of life are now seen for what they are, simply
thoughts and feelings that have escaped scrutiny before because of the deep unconscious
identification with them.

When I smell something unpleasant, like garbage and bad air, I feel very
agitated and angry.

Is there a way where you can practise when you smell something unpleasant, wont
have these kind of thoughts?

I have a neighbour who burn incense everyday without fail, once in morning and
once at night and filled the whole corridor with the incense, but I find the
incense really smelly and unpleasant and I felt pissed and angry whenever I
smelled by the incense smell

This is the impact of conditioning. Once formed, it becomes a whole new
experiential reality and is difficult to rid off.

JonLS: 26 August 2007 · 03:26 PM

quote:

This is the impact of conditioning. Once
formed, it becomes a whole new experiential reality and is difficult to rid
off.

It is difficult as long as it is clung to. If you would rather react to the
smell than see what mechanism is at work then that is what you will get. If
there is an openness, a desire to let go or a desire for the truth of our being
then this allows the space, the stillness, for truth to emerge.

This openness or space that is created is beginning of the end of the separate
sense of self.

Because , at first, it can be painful and scary for
the egoic sense of self.

But the peace and liberation more than make up for it.

And never is there a sense that it is not as it should be.

An Eternal Now: 28 August 2007 · 03:20 AM

Enlightenment

by Toni Packer, "The Wonder of Presence"

Someone asked, “Does it really matter if we ‘wake up’ or not?”

A little while ago I took a walk up the hill. What a delightful morning! Warmth
and coolness were present at the same time. Gentleness pervaded the air, and
birds were singing everywhere. Wet, sodden shoes passed by the croaking pond
where tiny little skimmers crisscrossed back and forth on the surface of the
water, leaving their ever so delicate tracks.

On the big upper field several deer were grazing. Looking up at the intruder,
their long white tails twitched a little as we looked at each other. Then they
kept on grazing. Colors dotted the sun-drenched field, and blooming grasses
were swaying in the breeze. The fragrance of wild roses filled the air.

If you had walked along with me this beautiful morning, we both would have
laughed at the question whether it matters if we wake up or not.

Had we been caught up in anger, worry, or frustration, we wouldn’t have
laughed. We would not have seen the lovely vibrant field.

We have so many questions. Whence do they arise? Are there deeper motives to
our question? Can we wonder about it and look? Someone asked, “Is there such a
thing as ultimate, complete and total enlightenment?” Are we really asking, “If
there is such a thing, can I get it?”

Where does wondering about complete and total enlightenment come from? And from
where does wanting it arise? And the frustration about not getting it? Doesn’t
it all come out of our deep inner discontent with ourselves, with others, and
with the world? Sometimes we can’t even say what it is that causes it; we just
feel painfully out of sync. There is an inner meaninglessness, a feeling of
hollow emptiness. Not the emptiness of vast open space, but a feeling of
nothing of value inside, feeling lonely, cut off from happiness and alienated
from people. There may be the fear of abandonment, or feeling unloved. All of
these things are going on in human beings.

Out of the desires to fill up the inner depletion and find lasting contentment
may come questions about enlightenment, and with them the yearning to find
meaning and not feel isolated from everything and everyone. The brain creates
endless concepts and fantasies to alleviate the inner suffering.

If we become increasingly transparent to these movements of thought and
feeling, we will realize that inner pain is not dissolved by conventional ways
of dealing with it, materially or spiritually. Money, position, acquisitions,
or relationships have not brought lasting contentment. Religious beliefs may
provide illusions of security and support, but for many of us they simply have
not worked. We have wandered from one belief system to another, attracted by
promises of salvation, liberation, or enlightenment, but real hunger for truth
and clarity can be stilled only with genuine food.

The discursive mind is capable of throwing up doubts and sceptical questions at
any time. Maybe we suddenly find ourselves in quiet openness, a profound
stillness without any feeling of lack. Then thought comes in and beings to
wonder “Will this last? Can I get it back? Was it real? Was this enlightenment
or is there more? It doesn’t seem enough.” Thinking about a past moment of
freedom immediately sows the seeds of doubt by asking, “Is this all there is?
It can’t be! There must be a more convincing experience than what I just had!”
Thoughts grow like clinging vines that choke the living presence. Truly being
here is being unknown, unknowable, unadorned. Being here is absence of doubting
or affirming thoughts about myself. It is the absence of me! Thoughts that
arise about me are just thoughts, with their enormous power to obscure clarity.

Is it our task to find out whether or not there is total and complete
enlightenment like the Buddha proclaimed? I always liked the Buddha’s saying:
“I truly attained nothing from complete, unexcelled enlightenment, and that is
why it is called complete, unexcelled enlightenment” No-thing, no one to
attain it, spaceless space, no one there to occupy it. Just alive presence with
the evening star in the sky. Dying to all the stuff imagined and clung to about
oneself – what I am, what I was, what I will be, what I could be, should be...

Can we see all concepts as concepts with deepening clarity and wisdom?
Not immediately lurching toward something promised in the future that has its
sole existence in thoughts? Can we clearly discern what constitutes thinking
and what is actually present right here without needing to think it? Can we
discern it effortlessly?

The open windows, fresh air touching the skin, bright
sunshine everywhere, all kinds of twittering sounds, crows calling and
breathing, pulsating life! Caw, caw, caw, caw.. Sensations throughout
the body, breathing, beholding it, not the words, but the aliveness of it all.
Can we realize now that “complete unexcelled enlightenment” is a concept?

You may sincerely object, “How can I know for sure that enlightenment is just a
concept? Maybe it is real. Lots of enlightened teachers have told and
written about it. So – shall we then ask together: “What is enlightenment
without all concepts?”

Let us delve profoundly into this question, not asking for other people’s
description of experiences, not looking for promises, nor expecting to know for
sure, but questioning out of not knowing, inquiring meditatively, deeply,
darkly, until we don’t know anymore what is “enlightened” or “un-enlightened”!
In silently wondering deeply without knowing, the conceptual world is left
behind. Are we going into the question in this way?

All too often our yearning for something to alleviate the inner suffering gets
in the way of deep inquiry. Rather than asking, “What is enlightenment” can we
question our inner feeling of insufficiency? We have tried to fill it with
fantasies of all descriptions, with entertainment, acquisitions, achievements,
relationships, spiritual searching, and solemn vows – anything to fill the
aching void. But have we ever really explored it directly, unconditionally?

Becoming conscious of it in or out of retreat, can we be with the ache of
emptiness ,not calling it by any name? Let all labels fly into thin air and
stay with what is here, discomfort without calling it discomfort. Staying here
with what’s indefinable. Not resisting, not fighting, not looking for anything
else. Just letting what is here be here in its entirety, physically, mentally,
totally. Letting it be without knowing. Not becoming the doer for or against
it. Just this quiet presence in the midst of the silence of chaos. In this
there is an unfolding transparency. It happens when one sits patiently,
silently, unconditionally. By “sitting” I simply mean being totally with what
is here. Not moving away or toward something else, just remaining with the
whole thing – an intense presence that includes all bodily sensations,
breathing, wind-storming, raining, sunning, birding, coughing, fans humming –
everything right here, all at once, without a seam. Observing thoughts coming
up, emotions about to be triggered, physical sensations arising and more
thoughts, emotions, feelings, sensations unfolding and abating – being with it
all. There isn’t any place to escape to. Everything is here without separation.

Let thoughts come up, let them reveal themselves for what they are and
disappear. It all is the stuff of dreams, traces from the infinite past.
Thoughts may trigger fear, but fear too can become transparency. When it
arises, here it is. Let it be. Don’t call it by name – labels attract memories
and reactions from the past. No need to have any feelings about it – they too
are empty. Fear is an unavoidable occurrence in our habitual self-centered
consciousness. We cannot possibly live the illusion of a separate me
without experiencing fears about what may happen to it. But illusions and
dreams can also be seen as just dreams and illusions, even though they can
arouse tremendous inner turbulence in the form of horror, agony, or pleasure.
It is all part and parcel of human consciousness manifesting as separate me
and you.

Sitting quietly, watching things come up time and time again, a tape may be
playing: “Is that what meditation is all about? I don’t want to spend
the rest of my meditative life watching endless repetitions of garbage.” But
the important thing is not what is seen but the quality of seeing. When
a person asks, “Is watching the comings and goings of thoughts and emotions all
there is to meditation?” I say that it all depends on the quality of the
watching. Is it consumed by judging, by feeling guilty, ashamed, or impatient?
As those mental movements occur, see them for what they are and don’t be
disturbed by them. That is choiceless awareness – no separate watcher occupying
center stage. The inner show is simply displaying itself on its own and needs
no particular audience, no applause or rejection . Let it all happen as it is
happening in the infinite space of open presence.

Is “choiceless awareness” just another dream, a new illusion? Thought can turn
anything into a concept by thinking and dreaming about it. See it when it
happens and don’t be fooled by it. Choiceless awareness is not an illusion. It
is here for human beings like you and me. Transparency unfolds on its own,
revealing all there is as it is, in utter directness and simplicity, without
need for a director.

Actually, awareness is here even during times of darkness. Presence never goes
anywhere. This is not a dogmatic statement but a simple fact that each one of
us can come upon. See the cloud, the darkness! Hear the wind! Feel the
breathing! Smell the flowers! Touch the swaying grasses! Clouds, wind,
thoughts, breathing, fragrant flowers, and grasses change all the time, but
seeing is here without time. Even though doubts may obscure it, it is here the
instant the mind stops and every cell of the body opens up to hear and see and
be.

No need to bother one’s head about what has been said. Being present is all of
oneself, not just the head! We are this entire living creation from moment to
moment without a break. Walk innocently through the fields, into the woods,
along the ocean beach or in the city streets with the sheer joy of aliveness,
its infinite movements and sounds and fragrance – the love of it all without
making a thing out of it!

Are we here?

JonLS: 30 August
2007 · 01:31 PM

quote:

Nevertheless, the mind will be stubbornly
attached to this current mode of knowing because to the mind, it is all there
is. It seems to be a destined journey that a sincere seeker has to continue
penetrate its own depth, till it completely exhaust itself and meet its own
DEATH. The death of the 'I'.

The giving up and full understanding of the poverty of the entire
thinking and analytical mechanism will allow the mind to rest itself upon
nothing.

This is exactly the experience I've had.

Thusness: 31 August 2007 · 09:39 AM

quote:

Originally posted by JonLS:

This is exactly the experience I've had.

Impermanence…

Thoughts, feelings and perceptions come and go; they are not ‘me’; they are
transient in nature. Isn’t it clear that if I am aware of these passing
thoughts, feelings and perceptions, then it proves some entity is immutable and
unchanging? This is a logical conclusion rather than experiential truth. The
formless reality seems real and unchanging because of propensities
(conditioning) and the power to recall a previous experience and the experience
of ‘impersonality’ may not be able to bring sufficient clarity to the
‘impermanent and dynamic’ aspect of isness presence. The bliss and peace
experienced here, is still the bliss of formlessness.

There is also another experience, this experience does not discard or disown
the transients -- forms, thoughts, feelings and perceptions. It is the
experience that thought thinks and sound hears. Thought knows not because there
is a separate knower but because it is that which is known. It knows because
it's it. It gives rise to the insight that isness never exists in an
undifferentiated state but as transient manifestation; each moment of
manifestation is an entirely new reality, complete in its own. This brings
about the insight of non-duality but the experience of ‘impersonality need not
necessarily arise.

My experience is fusing and stabilizing these 2 experiences are necessary to
help further dissolve the ‘I’. With the dropping of the 'I' , experience
whole-heartedly and dropped the experience immediately; then nothing will
imobilize the flow.

PS: By the way, any idea what give rise to the sense of impersonality?

Thusness: 31 August 2007 · 09:52 AM

quote:

Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
The open windows, fresh air touching the skin, bright sunshine everywhere, all
kinds of twittering sounds, crows calling and breathing, pulsating life! Caw,
caw, caw, caw.. Sensations throughout the body, breathing, beholding it,
not the words, but the aliveness of it all. Can we realize now that “complete
unexcelled enlightenment” is a concept?

You may sincerely object, “How can I know for sure that enlightenment is just a
concept? Maybe it is real. Lots of enlightened teachers have told and
written about it. So – shall we then ask together: “What is enlightenment
without all concepts?”
.
.
. Are we here?

No! To answer both Toni Packer's questions of "are we here?" and
"Can we discern it effortlessly?". It is like Buddha asking
non-dual practitioners the non-local aspect of our nature.

I think wisdom should also involve the clear discernment of the entire working
of our conditioning, not only the non-dual aspect of it.

Thusness: 31 August 2007 · 01:56 PM

quote:

Originally posted by Thusness:

Impermanence…

Thoughts, feelings and perceptions come and go; they are not ‘me’; they are
transient in nature. Isn’t it clear that if I am aware of these passing
thoughts, feelings and perceptions, then it proves some entity is immutable and
unchanging? This is a logical conclusion rather than experiential truth. The
formless reality seems real and unchanging because of propensities
(conditioning) and the power to recall a previous experience and the experience
of ‘impersonality’ may not be able to bring sufficient clarity to the
‘impermanent and dynamic’ aspect of isness presence. The bliss and peace
experienced here, is still the bliss of formlessness.

just to add:
This experience somehow creates a sense of alienation. There is really nothing
to alienate as the fundamental cause of suffering is not the inherent existence
of evil in the transient but ignorance; ignorance of the true nature of things.

There is also another experience, this experience does not discard or disown
the transients -- forms, thoughts, feelings and perceptions. It is the
experience that thought thinks and sound hears. Thought knows not because there
is a separate knower but because it is that which is known. It knows because
it's it. It gives rise to the insight that isness never exists in an
undifferentiated state but as transient manifestation; each moment of
manifestation is an entirely new reality, complete in its own. This brings
about the insight of non-duality but the experience of ‘impersonality need not
necessarily arise.

An Eternal Now:
31 August 2007 · 10:00 PM

quote:

Originally
posted by Thusness:
No! To answer both Toni Packer's questions of "are we here?" and
"Can we discern it effortlessly?". It is like Buddha asking
non-dual practitioners the non-local aspect of our nature.

I think wisdom should also involve the clear discernment of the entire working
of our conditioning, not only the non-dual aspect of it.

Originally posted by laoda99:For a Christian like me, my faith lies in Jesus Christ whom
I believed have redeemed me from my sins. There is nothing which I
can do to earn my salvation becoz salvation is given freely by God
for whoever believe in his son.

It is not accurate to say that other faith systems apart from
Buddhism practices blind faith. In the bible, we are told:

1 John 4:1 (New International Version)

1 John 4
Test the Spirits

1Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to
see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have
gone out into the world.

This clearly shows that in Christianity we are encouraged to
countercheck. By what standards? By the word of God. Because the
Holy spirit will never contradict the word of God. This is why it
is important for Christians to be grounded in scripture. Being
grounded in scripture ensured the believer to have sound theology,
[b]which in turn ensured our faith to the be the right faith
instead of one which is based on emotions/hearsay.
[/b]

Thanks for sharing Laoda99.

'Right' implies complying with a pre-determined set of criteria. I
think we must be aware of the distinction between "right faith" and
"right attitude towards faith". If a certain belief system has a
criterion "that one should have full trust in God", then 'testing
God' is not 'right faith'. A half-hearted devotion will deny the
relationship as well as the experience with God. To a rationalist
this approach may not be appealing, but to some sages, their wisdom
have penetrated deep enough to understand the entirety of our
psychological and spiritual makeup. I do not see it as wrong. It is
a practice that will similarly yield religious experiences. One
should not be afraid to be blind in total devotion. Nevertheless if
such practices are understood wrongly or fall under the hands of
unscrupulous religious leaders, it can be devastating.

On the other hand, I think "right attitude towards faith" do
require us to question and check the basis of our belief systems.
For the latter, it is the process of authentication that deepens
the faith; however this can be quite challenging psychologically
and dangerous too. It can lead one to a state of total
confusion.

Both approaches are different in nature. In Buddhism there are
different paths to suit different people, it is not a one and for
all cases. It staged one according to their suitability and
developed the necessary conditions for us to progress further.
Spirituality is not an easy journey, we will learn along the road.

Sort of off-topic but just to point out that faith plays a vital
role in our life and we are always investing faith in people,
theories, concepts and belief systems unknowingly. Human is not
just a rational being; to understand ourselves, we must also
examine our emotional, mythical and psychological makeup.

To touch on what is true and right free of our belief systems
is a philosophical question that I do not wish to get into. Coming
into contact with Buddhism is more of coincidental. My deepening of
faith in Buddhas words came only as a result of practice. It is
experiential and subjective. It is sort of I know because I
experience it.

Interesting topic and I think I will skew a little to talk about
science and faith since AEN was discussing a related thread
yesterday.

Faith is necessary because there is no certainty in knowledge. Even
in exact science, no certainty is to be found. Of course certainty
versus probable knowledge is a topic relating to Epistemology (the
theory on Knowledge) but still, it is pivotal towards understanding
why the need for faith at all. How science has led to the common
misunderstanding that faith is not necessary is amazing but it is
mostly due to the predictive nature of these scientific theories
derived from thorough experimentation. This is, however, mainly due
to the fact that the pool of data made available for the derivation
of these theories does not go beyond our man-size world. As we
know, Newtonian physics or classical science works well for a
man-size world but not quite well in the macro and micro universe.
Our ordinary experiences do not permit us to experience something
having the mass of a star or traveling at half-speed of light, we
presume that the entire universe must obey the laws of the man-size
world. But when we are exposed to things not so ordinary, like
traveling at a speed much faster then our ordinary experience of
speed, we are lost because phenomena just dont behave the way we
expected it to be. The idea that time travel slower when they are
approaching the speed of light and halt at speed of light is mind
boggling. Similarly when scientists begin to deal with the universe
of the outer space  the macro universe, they are dealing with much
more massive objects than the man-size world, a billion times more.
The idea that space curves and time halt at the speed of light came
as a shocked to the classical scientists. This applies true when we
deal with the micro universe of the quantum world. The world of the
electrons does not comply with Newtonian nor Einstein theory. This
includes the spooky non-local behavior of particles that AEN
brought up in another thread. When Heisenberg introduced
the uncertainty principle, it is so weird that even Einstein
rejected it and thus, Einstein famous remark -- God does not play
dice. But God does not play dice is a belief system! I
cant remember where I read it but I could clearly recalled that
even Stephen Hawking used phrases like official dogma, deep
emotional attachment to determinism to describe scientists like
Einstein. Stephen Hawking even went further to say that Einstein
was doubly wrong when he said God does not play dice.

I will not dwell too deeply into it but the purpose is simply to
illustrate that our knowledge is nothing certain nor absolute.
Science is itself a belief system for us to better understand the
phenomenon existence. It is its certainty in predictability within
a prescribed environment that convinces us that faith is not
necessary. It creates the impression of certainty and made a
probable knowledge appears absolute but in actual case, science
itself is a belief system and a great deal of faith (maybe good and
rational faith in this case) is vested in science
unknowingly.

Unwillingness to share is selfishness. That
is the desire to hold and not to part, not necessarily, what we
already have and in abundance.
Greed is the desire to want more of the same, beyond need and even
though already in abundant possession. It may actually sound like
sefishness is the opposite of greed but have the same root -
craving & clinging?

I do agree with what you said to certain extend and the analogy
given in my previous post about exams is not a good one. A selfish
person needs not be greedy and vice versa.

Nevertheless I think including the unwillingness factor when
attempting to have a more complete picture of greed is still
crucial. An example will be the unwillingness to cut loss when a
person in equity market is experiencing a drastic sharp dropped on
the share prices. This to me is a manifestation of greed. Thus the
Dharma therapy towards greed is generosity -- an opposite
countering quality by practicing the willingness to share and
give.

On the other hand, selfishness to me is more of placing ones
interest ahead of others and the unwillingness to part due to
selfishness is an expression of that factor.

Lastly I do agree that both have the same root  craving and
clinging.

Oh bad me. I again missed out that greed
also contain selfishness. I'm such a leaky cup!

I am as ignorance...came only to my awareness when I felt the
pinch of parting something.

Next you may also want to look into how Buddhism understands
phenomenon existence not as entities but as actions or events.
Objects are defined in terms of their functions and properties,
that is, what they do and what they possess. Presently this is how
we understand and experience the world. But in Buddhism, such
fundamentals are being thoroughly challenged and questioned; there
is no entity but only events (actions, karma). How actions
continues without the need for an entity and how possession is a
wrong idea from start.

The greed i refer to is the thirst for
knowledge. All types of knowledge but with focus on scientific
progression like how to conquer space or studying hard to pass
exams or even the strife for a better life.

Just for sharing:

In my opinion, greed is not only characterized by the desire to
want more but also the unwillingness to share what we already have
and in abundance. It creates a perpetual inner deficy that can
never be satisfied. An example will be a student's unwillingness to
share certain knowledge for selfish reasons especially when
examination is drawing near. This selfishness to me is driven by
greed. With this poison in heart, the mind cannot rest. They are
two sides of the same coin. Thus, innocent and open quest for
knowledge must also be balanced by generosity (dana) and generosity
must similarly be accompanied by wisdom (not prajna wisdom). As
pointed out by AEN, openly sharing atomic knowledge can be
catastrophic; it may be generous but unwise. Therefore, as long as
the 'desire' for knowledge (or anything) can be balanced by
generiosity and accompanied with wisdom, I do not see a problem.

To Laoda99:
No. There is no monopoly over Reality and Truth in Buddhism and the
reality that Buddhism talks about is a phenomenological reality. It
is what is presented as a conscious experience.

To TheGoodEarth:

I will define it in terms of practicality narrowing it within the
context of pragmatism. In pragmatic theory, right deals with
behaving. So here I will define right faith as the correct way of
behaving when adopting a particular faith. The commandments defines
the right faith in Christianity where as the precepts defines the
right faith in Buddhism. The True of something in pragmatism
refers to the effectiveness of an application in actuality. I will
define the true of faith as the effectiveness of applying such a
faith into actual living.